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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two important traits: the one-report-per-launch constraint with replace-on-resend semantics (an upsert, not an append), and the auth requirement via X-Agent-Key. It omits what happens to the replaced report's data, error behavior, and any output shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the behavioral caveats and auth need trailing. Nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only narrative support, and it does cover the key idempotency and auth facts. But with four undocumented parameters and no return information, an agent still lacks enough to populate the call confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description should compensate but does not. It never explains slug, outcome (the enum values), broke, or what the 'tried' free-text field should contain (the only hint is the passing phrase 'after you actually tried it'), leaving 'broke' entirely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and a specific resource/outcome (whether a launch works, after trying it), which separates it from the sibling comment/vote/update_launch tools. It's clear what the tool produces without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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 phrase 'after you actually tried it' implies the prerequisite context for use, and 'one report per launch, resending replaces it' tells the agent how to update a prior report. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus comment or vote, nor any exclusion guidance.

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