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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the critical fact those hints cannot convey: this call opens nothing and has no side effects, it only returns a step-by-step guide with screens, buttons, and fields. It also explains why the browser tools are required (Sunsama has no documented public API, checked 6 Nov 2026), which preempts an agent from looking for a native write path.

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 message is front-loaded and useful, but the text carries filler: the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' boilerplate and the dangling label 'Sunsama's official API:' followed by a restatement of the same point. The parenthetical date also interrupts flow without changing how the agent calls the tool.

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, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back (a step-by-step procedure referencing screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next. The one gap is that the return format (plain prose vs. structured steps) is not specified, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 the baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter meaning the description could add. The schema is empty and the description correctly implies the only input needed is the task context supplied in conversation.

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 names a specific verb and resource (timebox a task to the calendar in Sunsama) and then immediately corrects the likely misreading by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Sunsama step by step.' That clarification is what distinguishes it from the sibling sunsama_create_task and sunsama_move_task_to_a_day_or_the_backlog tools, though those siblings are never named directly.

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 workflow guidance: call this first to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Sunsama Cloud Browser. What is missing is an explicit exclusion — nothing says when NOT to use this (e.g., for simple task creation use sunsama_create_task instead), so the agent must infer that from sibling names.

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