Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them by stating it 'opens nothing by itself.' It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations by describing the return content (screens, buttons, fields) and the hand-off to browser tools, which an agent could not infer from the empty schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core instruction is front-loaded and useful, but the second half is a long semicolon-chained sentence, and the closing digression about Discord's official API and 'checked 5 Nov 2026' is tangential justification that dilutes the call to action. The structure would be stronger split into a what-it-does sentence and a what-to-do-next sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is needed: what the tool returns and how to act on it. Only the relationship to cotlet_app_guide and any expectation about the guide's size/format are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The absence of inputs is consistent with a pure guidance tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (assign a role in the user's own Discord account) and immediately clarifies that the tool itself returns step-by-step guidance rather than performing the action, which resolves the ambiguity in the name. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* execution tools, though it never explains how it differs from the generic cotlet_app_guide sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear use path: call this to get the step-by-step procedure, then carry it out with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Discord Cloud Browser. It also explains why the official Discord API/bot route is not an option, which heads off a plausible alternative. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.