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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is the single most important behavioral fact given the name implies a write. It also discloses that no official MCP server exists and that an admin must provision an OAuth2 client, adding auth context beyond the annotations. The dated API aside is informational rather than behavioral, keeping it from 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?

The purpose and the key caveat ('opens nothing by itself') are front-loaded, and the follow-up tool path comes before the background detail. Minor waste in the marketing phrasing 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the API footnote, but nothing that obscures the call.

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, no-output-schema advisory tool, the description covers what is returned (screens, buttons, fields) and what happens next. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned instructions, but that is a small gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 to disambiguate; the schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly implies no input is required. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (add a case update in SuiteCRM) and, crucially, corrects the misleading name by saying it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the write. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like suitecrm_add_note, but it does name the cotlet_browser_* family as the execution path, so an agent can place it in 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?

It gives clear sequencing guidance: call this to get the walkthrough, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the SuiteCRM Cloud Browser. There is no explicit when-not or prerequisite check (e.g., what to do if the user has no browser session), but the intended context is unambiguous.

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