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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with the explicit 'opens nothing by itself', which prevents an agent from assuming a mutation occurred. It also discloses the output shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the required environment (Supermove Cloud Browser), though it omits preconditions such as whether a browser session must be opened first.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and states the core behavior. However, the closing paragraph about Supermove's Developer API endpoints and the 'checked 28 Oct 2026' date is tangential trivia that does not help an agent decide to call the tool or call it correctly.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so ('returns how to do it step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). It also points to the execution path via cotlet_browser_*; the main missing piece is prerequisite state for the Cloud Browser session.

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; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics.

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 ('Assign trucks') and, crucially, clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the assignment. It also names the sibling family (cotlet_browser_*) that does the actual work, though it never distinguishes itself from supermove_assign_crew.

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 usage pattern: call this first to get the click path, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools inside the user's Supermove Cloud Browser. There are no when-not-to-use conditions and no guidance on choosing between this and supermove_assign_crew, which is a real gap given the near-identical sibling.

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