Retry a fund's share-token metadata

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world; the description still adds real value by disclosing the SOL cost (~0.014 SOL in the app wallet) and the safety nuance that the live vault is untouched and only on-chain metadata is added. It does not cover permissions or what the operation returns, but the cost and additive-only framing are strong context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and trigger, then prerequisites (vault live) and cost. Nothing is padded and every sentence adds decision-relevant 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description covers the trigger, the resource, the prerequisite state, and the cost. The only gap is that it doesn't hint at the confirmation-phrase flow or the result of the retry, which an agent might want.

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% and the `vault` parameter has no schema description (only a pattern). The description partially compensates by tying it to 'a fund you launched,' implying the vault address, but gives no format or disambiguation guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents confirmPhrase in detail.

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 states a specific verb (retry/attach) plus resource (share-token metadata: name, symbol, logo) scoped to 'a fund you launched.' It also distinguishes the operation from launch_vault by clarifying the vault is 'already live' and this 'only adds its on-chain metadata,' so an agent can separate it from launch_vault and update_vault_assets.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use this 'when the launch note says that step failed or was skipped,' and implicitly rules out re-launching since the vault is already live. No alternative tool is named for the case where metadata needs editing rather than a failed-step retry, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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