Launch a fund

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

Annotations already mark this destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the signing/payment model, the refusal-instead-of-local-keypair behavior, creator-fixes-onchain semantics, factory-global fees that the creator cannot set, issuer-lock risk on freezable mints, the non-fatal metadata step (#47), and the mandatory first-deposit threshold. This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the gating and the core action, and nearly every clause carries operational meaning (bps total, count limits, uniqueness, rent). It is dense and laden with parentheticals, which slightly impedes scanning, but there is little true filler.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the return value ('Returns the vault address'), the funding follow-up, gating, and the key parameter constraints. Only `category` and the generic `description` field go unexplained, leaving a small but real gap.

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 only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the critical complex parameter — it defines `assets` shape (mint/symbol/allocationBps), the exact-10000 bps rule, and the 2–10 count — and explains `metadata:false` rent behavior and name/symbol uniqueness. Gaps remain for `category` and `description`, which are undocumented in both places.

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 ('Create a new fund') immediately after the REAL-MONEY gating marker, and frames the on-chain consequence (app wallet becomes vault admin, creator fixed forever). An agent can distinguish this creation tool from update_vault_assets, deposit, or get_vault without opening a 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?

Gives a clear precondition (active app wallet required, refuses otherwise) and routes the agent to the app_wallet sibling when a fund write is refused. It does not spell out alternate creation paths or an explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous for a one-shot creation call.

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