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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and that the actual mutation must be done via cotlet_browser_* tools. It also states the approximate return shape (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). It does not describe failure modes or what happens when the guidance cannot be produced.

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, but the sentence is overloaded with low-value framing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a tangential API-status aside ('GraphQL API and no official MCP server (checked 31 Oct 2026)') that does not help an agent decide or act. Splitting the read-only guarantee from the browser handoff into separate sentences would improve scannability.

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 return-value burden and does so at a coarse level (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields). It also establishes where the real execution happens, which is the key thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites and error behavior, but the definition is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 per the baseline this lands at 4. The description cannot and does not add parameter meaning, and the empty schema with additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory. Nothing in the description misrepresents the 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+resource (add material line in Ordrestyring) and immediately disambiguates the misleading name by stating the tool only returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than performing the write. It is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* family it hands off to, though it does not contrast itself with cotlet_app_guide or cotlet_apps, which also appear to be guidance-style siblings.

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?

Clear usage context is given: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Ordrestyring Cloud Browser. The ordering constraint and the handoff target are explicit. What is missing is any when-not condition or prerequisite (e.g. what to do if no Ordrestyring browser session exists) before an agent commits to this two-step path.

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