Confirm the AfterLaunch key works before any growth or marketing work: which product run it is bound to, its scopes, tier and trial_ends_at, plus onboarding (feed_ready is false while the Growth Snapshot deep scan is still building, so wait before reading the Feed) and credits once metering is live. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as feed_ready being false while the deep scan builds and credits only available once metering is live. This helps the agent understand the asynchronous nature of certain returned fields and plan accordingly. No contradiction with annotations.
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 description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in relevant details. It is efficient, though slightly overloaded with multiple clauses; splitting it into two sentences could improve readability without losing 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?
Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the expected return values (product run, scopes, tier, trial_ends_at, feed_ready, credits) and the timing of their availability. It also provides usage context that makes the tool's role clear in the broader workflow.
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 an empty input schema, there is no need for parameter explanation. The baseline for a zero-param tool is 4, and the description adds value by explaining the returned fields instead, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Confirm the AfterLaunch key works' and enumerates the specific information it returns (product run, scopes, tier, trial_ends_at, onboarding, credits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by establishing it as an identity/context check to be called first.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this first' before any growth or marketing work, and provides additional timing guidance (wait for feed_ready before reading the Feed, credits once metering is live). This clearly indicates when to use the tool and sets expectations for subsequent actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.