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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description earns credit by adding the non-obvious behavioral fact that the tool "opens nothing by itself" and that its return is a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields), which an agent needs to plan sequencing. It does not describe the shape or length of that returned guide.

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 behavior and the handoff to cotlet_browser_* tools are front-loaded and useful. The trailing sentence about Humanitix's public API version and the absence of an official MCP server, including a "checked 31 Oct 2026" timestamp, adds no decision value for an agent selecting or invoking this tool.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the needed burden: it says what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), that nothing is opened, and what to do afterwards. Only the exact format of the returned guide is left implicit, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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, so there is no schema semantics to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies nothing is configured at call time.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Send email campaign in the user's own Humanitix account") and immediately clarifies the actual function: it returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than performing the send. This disambiguates the potentially misleading tool name. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named 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?

Gives an explicit workflow: this tool returns the steps, then the agent should execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Humanitix Cloud Browser. That is real when-to-use and next-step guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or why to pick it over cotlet_app_guide.

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