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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the created object is a private draft (not a published launch), that omitted fields are auto-read from the website, and that the maker must later pick a launch day and submit via the returned edit_link. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error 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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Every clause (the link requirement, the auto-fill fallback, the edit_link workflow) carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly explains the return (draft plus edit_link) and the follow-up workflow, which is the key missing piece for a create tool. It stops short of visibility semantics for 'private', auth, or failure modes, but is otherwise complete for a 7-param creation call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the fallback that name, one_line, description and tags are pulled from the website when omitted, plus the 'at least one link' constraint on website/app_store/google_play.

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 ('Start a new launch'), resource (launch draft) and scope ('private draft') on a named platform. The word 'new' and 'draft' implicitly separate it from the update_launch_draft sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete usage rule that the schema does not encode: 'Give at least one link: website, app_store or google_play' — essential since the schema declares zero required params. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over siblings or name any exclusions.

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