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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool returns step-by-step UI instructions (screens, buttons, fields) and performs no action itself, which resolves the ambiguity created by the name 'apply'. The trailing note about Zendesk's REST API and the absence of an MCP server is background rather than behavior.

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-and-a-half, which is good. The final sentence about Zendesk's official REST API and a 'checked 16 Oct 2026' verification date is tangential trivia that does not help an agent decide or invoke, and it dilutes an otherwise tight statement.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what an agent most needs: what comes back (step-by-step UI instructions) and what does not happen (no action taken). Combined with annotations, an agent can call it correctly; only the handoff to specific browser tools remains slightly underspecified.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 title/verb phrase 'Apply macro in Zendesk' is specific, and the description immediately corrects the natural misreading of 'apply' by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Zendesk step by step... and opens nothing by itself.' It also distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* tools that perform the actions. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like zendesk_update_ticket.

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 follow-up path ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Zendesk Cloud Browser'), which is useful workflow context. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it versus zendesk_update_ticket or zendesk_add_internal_note, so the guidance is implied rather than enumerated.

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