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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds a division-of-labor fact that annotations cannot convey: all reasoning happens in the host AI with no server model calls or action authority, and the call returns tier estimate, host method, questions and local state. What it does not clarify is the consequence of idempotentHint=false — whether repeat calls create duplicate jobs or overwrite local state — which is the main behavioral risk here.

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 core action and the return/authority facts, with no filler. The opening label 'Dark-launch team protocol' spends words on branding rather than clarity, which is the only real structural cost.

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 19-parameter, nested-object tool with an output schema and a dense sibling set, this description is thin: it omits mode selection, host capability negotiation, and prerequisite identifiers entirely. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from explaining how to drive the inputs.

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 only 11% across 19 parameters, including nested objects (host_capabilities, dials, preferences, option_source) and three enums, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. Only the required `request`/job notion is hinted at by 'define the real job', with no explanation of mode, host_profile, dials, deliverable_kind, context_refs, or how from_option/option_source interact.

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 does name concrete actions — define the job and rubric, assign a task lead and experts — but frames them in opaque jargon ('Dark-launch team protocol') that an agent must decode. It also draws no boundary against close siblings such as propose_team, prepare_job_context, start_outcome, or advance_job, so telling them apart requires opening the schemas.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives guidance. Nothing says whether this should run before propose_team, how it relates to start_outcome, or what prerequisite state (item_id, role_id, persona_id) must already exist, even though the sibling list makes those distinctions essential.

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