company_launch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at both read ('inspect') and write ('advance') behavior and mentions 'verified receipts', but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what advancing actually changes. This is insufficient for an operation that can mutate state.

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?

The description is a single terse sentence with no repetition or fluff, which is efficient in length. However, it is so under-specified that the conciseness comes at the cost of clarity, making it only minimally acceptable.

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 7 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the one-line description is far from complete. Although an output schema exists, an agent still lacks the information needed to know what a valid launch lifecycle is, what operations are allowed, and how to construct bundle_json or choose the correct operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain project_id, bundle_json, operation, entity_ref, payload_json, now, or engine. The phrase 'inspect or advance' loosely hints at operation modes but never ties them to the actual parameters, leaving required fields and allowed values ambiguous.

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 uses specific verbs ('Inspect', 'advance') and a resource ('launch'), but the meaning of 'scoped lifecycle and verified receipts' is opaque. It does not clearly define what a 'launch' is, what advancing entails, or how this tool differs from the many company_* siblings such as company_provisioning or company_bring_up.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use company_launch versus alternatives, nor any condition distinguishing when to inspect versus when to advance. No contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess from the schema.

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