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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself' – a genuinely useful clarification given the 'Add' verb in the name, which would otherwise suggest a write. It also discloses the return shape at a high level (screens, buttons, fields). The trailing note about Procore's REST API and 'checked 5 Nov 2026' adds no behavioral value to the caller.

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 and clear, but the sentence is padded with audience framing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and an unrelated paragraph about Procore's official API, OAuth sandbox, and a checked date. Roughly a third of the text does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it takes no action, and which tools carry out the follow-up. The only gap is what the returned steps look like in structure, which the agent would otherwise need to template itself.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the schema is a closed empty object and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 the specific task (adding a manpower entry in the user's Procore account) and immediately clarifies the tool's actual function: returning step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by naming them as the tools that actually execute the workflow.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent the sequence: read the steps here, then act with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Procore Cloud Browser. It establishes the context of use (user wants to add manpower in Procore) but does not state exclusions, such as when to skip this guide and act directly or how it relates to procore_create_punch_list_item and other Procore siblings.

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