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

The description explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself', which corroborates readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false rather than contradicting them. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the return payload is a procedural walkthrough and the actual mutation must happen through browser tools. It omits any note on session requirements or failure modes if no Cloud Browser exists.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the second sentence runs long and mixes three ideas (return format, no side effects, next step). The trailing 'Sunsama's official API: Sunsama has no documented public API (checked 6 Nov 2026)' is redundant phrasing with a date that adds little for tool selection.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does: a step-by-step procedure with screens, buttons, and fields. It also tells the agent the follow-up workflow with browser tools. Only the absence of any precondition/error context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to add; baseline 4 applies. The schema's additionalProperties:false with an empty object is self-explanatory.

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 the resource and effect: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) for logging actual time in the user's own Sunsama account rather than performing the write itself. This corrects the misleading name/title ('Log actual time') and tells the agent it is a guide-producing tool. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative (e.g., cotlet_app_guide), referring only to the generic cotlet_browser_* family.

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 a clear use sequence: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Sunsama Cloud Browser. That is actionable routing for an agent. It does not state when to prefer cotlet_app_guide or what to do if a browser session is unavailable, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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