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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does the heavy lifting the annotations cannot: it explains WHY a 'create' tool is read-only ('opens nothing by itself'), what it actually returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), and the plan-gated GraphQL API constraint. Missing only auth/session prerequisites and rate-limit notes.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the critical non-mutation caveat before the follow-up workflow and the API footnote. Slightly padded by the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause, and the Slab API note, while useful justification, is the least essential sentence.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description has to describe the return value itself, and it does: a step-by-step guide with screens, buttons, and fields. It also states the required execution environment (the user's Slab Cloud Browser). Only the exact sequence or session setup for the browser tools is left implicit.

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 meaning to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the post details are supplied later through the browser tools rather than as arguments, which preempts confusion about the empty schema.

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 verb and resource (create a Slab post) and immediately clarifies the twist: it returns a step-by-step guide of screens/buttons/fields rather than performing the action. It also names the cotlet_browser_* tools as the actual executors, so an agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

The workflow is explicit: call this first, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Slab Cloud Browser.' That routes the agent to the right alternative. It does not spell out when to skip this tool entirely (e.g., re-creating an existing post or using an already-known procedure), 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.