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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with them. It adds real value by stating the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns procedural guidance rather than acting. It does not cover what the response looks like beyond 'screens, buttons, fields', nor any prerequisite that a LearnWorlds connection must exist.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the trailing API paragraph is long and reads as justification rather than instruction; a single clause would have carried the same point. The core message (guidance only, execute via browser tools) is somewhat buried mid-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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). Combined with the handoff to cotlet_browser_* tools, an agent has enough to call it and use the result; only the prerequisites for the browser session are unstated.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, though it never says so explicitly (e.g., that the target user must be identified during the browser step).

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 verb and resource ('Unenroll users') and then clarifies the actual function: it 'Returns how to do it in LearnWorlds step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That second sentence is essential because the name alone would suggest the tool performs the unenrollment. It also distinguishes itself from the execution layer by naming the cotlet_browser_* tools, though it never contrasts itself with near-neighbors like learnworlds_suspend_user.

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?

The workflow is explicit: call this to get the steps, then perform them with cotlet_browser_* in the user's LearnWorlds Cloud Browser. The closing note on the v2 REST API requiring the Learning Center plan and custom code implicitly explains why this guide-based path exists. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or what to do if the account already has API access.

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