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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description corroborates this correctly rather than contradicting it ('opens nothing by itself'), which is the single most important disclosure for a tool whose name implies a write. It also volunteers the reason for the design (SimplePractice has no public API for practices, checked 27 Oct 2026) and the required downstream mechanism. Auth requirements, failure modes, and what happens if the browser session is not open are not covered.

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 non-execution caveat is front-loaded in the first sentence where it matters most, followed by the handoff mechanism. The final sentence on the missing public API is slightly tangential and could be trimmed, but it justifies why the browser fallback exists and is short.

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 prompt-driven tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the output shape (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and the following action. What it omits is the input contract — how the agent should phrase or supply the appointment identifier and target status — which an agent needs before calling it reliably.

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 there is no per-parameter meaning to add and the baseline is 4. The description does not explain how the target appointment and desired status are conveyed to the tool, but with an empty schema there is nothing the schema could have documented either.

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 makes the true behavior explicit: it returns a step-by-step guide to setting appointment status (screens, buttons, fields) and executes nothing itself, then hands off to cotlet_browser_* tools. This is a specific verb+resource and it preempts the misleading 'set' in the tool name. It stops short of differentiating against the closest sibling, cotlet_app_guide, which appears to serve a similar instructional role.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use this to learn how to change an appointment's status, then perform it with the browser tools, which is the correct two-step pattern and is spelled out. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of when cotlet_app_guide would be preferred, and no statement of what the caller must know (which appointment, which status) before invoking it.

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