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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the tool name says 'update' — the description resolves this apparent mismatch by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns step-by-step guidance. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context annotations alone cannot convey, and it prevents a misread of the safety profile. It stops short of describing the shape/length of the returned steps.

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 clarification ('returns steps, opens nothing') is front-loaded, which is good. But 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is promotional filler and the API footnote with a checked date adds little to invocation decisions, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools), which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the ticket-targeting question is left unaddressed.

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?

With zero input parameters there is no schema semantics for the description to add, so the baseline applies. A minor gap is that the description never explains how the target ticket is identified when no parameters exist, leaving the agent to infer that context comes from the 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 makes clear this is not an actual mutation: it 'Returns how to do it in Zammad step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' and 'opens nothing by itself', which lets an agent distinguish guidance generation from a real update. The verb+resource pairing is specific. It does not, however, distinguish this guide from sibling Zammad guides such as zammad_merge_tickets or zammad_run_macro, leaving sibling selection partly ambiguous.

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?

The description gives a useful follow-up workflow: read the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. It does not state when to choose this tool over the other Zammad guide siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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