Build unsigned Comfy token launch

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: no keys, no signatures, no submission, the creator-binding constraint, and the five-minute deadline embedded in the output. That said, the description doesn't explain what happens with the fee/policy hash in practice, and readOnlyHint=true alongside a state-dependent (idempotentHint=false) build could confuse an agent about reproducibility. No contradiction, but not exhaustive.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The UNSIGNED constraint and the no-keys/no-submission caveat are front-loaded, and the sibling-flow disambiguation is appended efficiently.

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 10 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the safety and flow story well but leaves the biggest input surface (terms: tax, delay, opening/floor bps, decay) totally unexplained. Return values are implied (policy hash, fee, deadline) but not confirmed. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool this structurally complex.

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 50%, so the schema documents some fields (name, symbol, creator, salt, opening_tick), but the most complex input — the nested `terms` object with five numeric fields — has no description-level explanation in either place. The description adds the creator/sender binding but nothing about the terms, recipients array semantics, or opening_tick alignment. Baseline 3 for partial coverage plus marginal additive value.

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 and resource ("Build an UNSIGNED ordinary token launch") and pins it to the committed mainnet ComfyLauncher. It also distinguishes the output artifact (unsigned tx with policy hash, fee, deadline) from the sponsored-launch and agent-registration flows, so the agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 scopes when this is appropriate: unsigned build only, no submission, and directs agent registration and sponsored launch elsewhere. It also states the precondition that the creator must be the eventual sender. It stops short of naming an exact sibling tool as the alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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