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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: PATCH-style partial updates and a per-state mutability restriction for in-review/live launches. However, it says nothing about permission/auth requirements, what happens when an invalid or non-existent id is supplied, or whether edits are recoverable, leaving material gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the state restriction. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what can change, that changes are partial, and the lifecycle-state restriction. Remaining gaps are error/permission behavior and any indication of what a successful update returns.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value: it groups website/app_store/google_play under the single concept 'links' and states the partial-update contract ('Only the fields you give change'), which the schema itself does not express. It does not, however, restate per-field constraints such as the 60-char name or 3-tag limits, which the schema already covers.

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 (Change) and resource (a draft), and enumerates the mutable field groups: links, name, one line, description, tags. An agent immediately knows this is a partial-edit tool for launch drafts. It does not name or contrast against siblings like create_launch_draft, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit state-dependent rule: a launch already in review or live can only change its one line, description and tags. Combined with 'Only the fields you give change,' this tells the agent both when the tool applies and what is off-limits in later lifecycle states. No explicit alternative tool is named for the restricted cases.

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