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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the important disclosure that it 'opens nothing by itself' — preventing an agent from assuming the note was actually created. It also discloses the output shape (screens, buttons, fields) that annotations cannot convey. The remaining gap is that it does not say what happens if the Gladly UI differs from the returned steps.

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 behavioral clarification is front-loaded and useful, but the closing sentence about Gladly's REST API and the absence of an official MCP server (with a 'checked 20 Oct 2026' date) is meta-commentary that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. It adds length without decision value.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) plus the required follow-up via browser tools. It is close to complete; only prerequisite state (e.g., whether the Cloud Browser must already be open on Gladly) is 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, and the schema is fully specified, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing or misleading.

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 names a specific resource (a note in the user's Gladly account) and, crucially, clarifies that the tool does not itself write anything but returns step-by-step instructions. The lead sentence ('Add note in the user's own Gladly account') initially reads like a write action and is only corrected in the following clause, which costs some clarity, but the net purpose is unambiguous.

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 does give a handoff instruction: use the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Gladly Cloud Browser to actually perform the note creation. What is missing is when to choose this over sibling API-backed tools such as gladly_reply_to_customer or gladly_create_task, and any prerequisite about needing an open browser session. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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