launch_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: launch is asynchronous, so the caller must poll (likely get_instance_status or wait_for_event). However it omits that this is a mutating operation with side effects, whether it fails if already running, and what happens if required params are missing.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding, but the brevity crosses into under-specification: the async note is the only content-bearing sentence beyond the restated verb.

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?

A mutation tool with five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain params, side effects, and follow-up behavior. It supplies only an async caveat, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call beyond the required id.

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?

Five parameters (id, world, server, offline, profile) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The only hint, "--launch", is a CLI flag reference, not guidance on what world/server/offline/profile mean or their valid values.

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 verb+resource pair ("Launch an instance") is specific, but the qualifier "through Prism (--launch)" is opaque jargon rather than disambiguation. Siblings include create_instance and stop_instance, and the description never clarifies that this starts an already-created instance rather than creating one.

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?

Nothing states when to use this versus create_instance, stop_instance, or get_instance_status. No preconditions are given (e.g. instance must exist, must be stopped, must be authenticated).

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