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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which prevents an agent from assuming the update happens automatically. It also discloses the notable external fact that Wanderlog has no public API or developer docs, explaining why a browser-driven path is required. It stops short of covering auth state or what happens if the user is not logged in.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key caveat that nothing is opened automatically. The API-availability note is slightly tangential but earns its place by justifying the browser-tool handoff; the dated 'checked 11 Oct 2026' is minor clutter.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is missing: what the tool returns (screens, buttons, fields) and what the agent must do next. Only the absence of any note on prerequisites (e.g., being signed in) keeps it from a 5.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to retrieve the guide.

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 itinerary in the user's Wanderlog account) and immediately clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the change. It also names the sibling family (cotlet_browser_*) that does the real work, so an agent can distinguish it from wanderlog_add_place or wanderlog_create_trip.

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 usage context: call this to get the how-to, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like wanderlog_add_place over this guide, but the sequencing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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