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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations, the description discloses the return content (screens, buttons, fields) and that the tool performs no side effects. It also adds the credential constraint that SoundCloud's public API requires an Artist Pro subscription, which annotations cannot convey; a note on how current that check is would help.

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 no-side-effect and follow-up-tool guidance is front-loaded and the API note comes last where it belongs. Some sentences are long and the parenthetical check date reads as filler, but nothing is redundant enough to obstruct comprehension.

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 parameterless, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it performs no action, which tools complete the workflow, and why the official API is not a shortcut. The only gap is that it never explains how the agent indicates which track to update when no arguments exist.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance, though it also does not explain how the target track is identified given the empty input 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (update track details in the user's own SoundCloud account) and immediately clarifies that the tool only returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than performing the update. This resolves the ambiguity in the tool name, though the name itself still suggests a write operation.

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?

It says explicitly that nothing is opened by this tool and that the actual update must be carried out with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the SoundCloud Cloud Browser, which routes the agent to the right follow-up calls. It does not name when not to use it or point to an alternative guide tool such as cotlet_app_guide.

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