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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that nothing is opened, that the return value is step-by-step UI instructions (screens, buttons, fields), and that no official API path is available. This usefully explains why readOnlyHint=true despite an "update" name. It omits auth/prerequisite details and doesn't describe the exact response shape, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value, then the follow-up tooling. The phrase "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler that could be cut, but the rest earns its place.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies what's needed: it names the return content and hands off to the browser tools. The one gap is how the target work order and desired status are identified, which an agent must infer from conversation.

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?

There are zero parameters and full schema coverage, so the baseline would be 4. However, the tool's usefulness depends on the agent knowing which work order and which target status matter; the description never explains how that information is conveyed (presumably from conversation context) or that no structured input exists for it, leaving a real ambiguity.

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 resource (work order status in ResMan) and, crucially, corrects the verb's implication by saying it "Returns how to do it in ResMan step by step (screens, buttons, fields)". The first sentence alone would mislead an agent into thinking it mutates data, but the second sentence disambiguates and separates it from the cotlet_browser_* tools that perform the action.

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 two-step workflow: this tool first, then cotlet_browser_* tools to actually perform the change in the ResMan Cloud Browser. It also explains why browser automation is needed (API only for approved Integration Partners). It does not explicitly say when to skip this tool, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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