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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides valuable behavior details: a launch groups campaign emails with dates, and if `stages` is omitted and type is curso/infoproducto, it seeds 8 standard stages (lead magnet → webinar → apertura de carrito → cierre). This goes beyond a simple 'creates a launch' statement, though it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or return 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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence is front-loaded with the verb and object, and the second sentence adds a conditional behavioral rule. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core purpose, the structure of a launch, and a key default behavior. It doesn't cover error conditions, return values, or all edge cases, but for a creation tool with high schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the default seeding behavior tied to `stages` and `seed_default_stages`, and lists the specific 8-stage sequence, which the schema does not enumerate. This elevates the value to 4.

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 opens with 'Crea un LANZAMIENTO' (Creates a launch), specifying the exact resource and verb. It clarifies the launch type with examples (curso, infoproducto, evento) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_launch and list_launches by indicating this is the creation action.

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 description implies the tool is for creating a launch object and explains the default stage seeding, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over other creation tools like create_flow or create_campaign. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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