edf_launch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it leaves existing manual work intact and will report if EDF must first be closed, which tells the agent about side effects and preconditions beyond the annotation set.

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 sentences with no waste, front-loading the primary action before the fallback mode and the side-effect note. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema launch tool, the description covers the essential action, the non-destructive behavior toward existing work, and the possibility of a 'must close first' report. It stops short of explaining what the automation connection returns or how the caller should react to the close-required report.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline 4 is appropriate; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the input schema.

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 ('Start EDF') and clarifies the two operating modes: a loopback automation connection or reusing the exact installed EDF page. It does not directly name or contrast a sibling tool, but 'launch' is clearly distinct from the read/query siblings (edf_status, edf_list_jobs, etc.).

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?

Implies when the tool applies (starting EDF) and notes the two connection strategies, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite conditions (e.g., when a loopback connection is preferable to reusing the installed page).

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