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

The key disclosure — 'opens nothing by itself' and it returns screens/buttons/fields instructions — reinforces the readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations with concrete meaning rather than repeating them. It does not describe prerequisites such as the user needing an active Lichess Cloud Browser session or what the response looks like if no browser session exists.

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 operative content (returns steps, performs nothing, follow up with browser tools) is front-loaded and useful. However, the trailing note about Lichess's official REST API and the absence of an official MCP server, including '(checked 17 Oct 2026)', is meta-commentary that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, and the middle sentence is a run-on.

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?

For a zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), that it causes no side effects, and which tools carry out the action. The remaining gap is auth/session preconditions for the browser step, which the agent must discover elsewhere.

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 parameter surface for the description to illuminate; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing misleading is said about inputs.

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 (team update in the user's own Lichess account) and immediately clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step guidance rather than performing the action. That resolves a name that would otherwise imply a write. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like lichess_create_broadcast or lichess_accept_team_join_request beyond pointing at the cotlet_browser_* follow-up.

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 states the context of use and the required follow-up path: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools against the user's Lichess Cloud Browser. It does not give explicit exclusions (e.g., which Lichess actions have direct API-backed sibling tools instead of this guidance flow), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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