Dry-run a CREW launch (no chain tx)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description reinforces by stressing 'without sending chain txs', and it adds context annotations don't carry: required CREW_AGENT_API_KEY, enablement env vars (BAGS_API_KEY / ZORA_ENABLED), and the return shape (dryRunId + approvalUrl). One gap: it does not explain what the agent should do with approvalUrl next.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and mode distinction before environmental and sourcing details. Dense but every clause carries information; only mild run-on risk in the platform/enablement sentence.

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?

Covers auth requirements, mode variants, defaults, and return values, which is solid for a 0-required-param tool with no output schema. But for a 22-parameter tool it omits the follow-up workflow (how dryRunId/approvalUrl lead to the actual launch) and leaves most fields unexplained.

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 36% schema description coverage across 22 parameters, the description must compensate but covers just a few: intent, platform default, and crew[] sourcing. Major inputs like mode, name, ticker, seats, initialBuySol, and the agent* fields get no semantic explanation in either schema or description.

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+resource: dry-run a CREW launch with no chain transactions, and names the two modes (launch default vs intent=wire-fees). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling crew_launch (real launch) and crew_wire_fees by emphasizing 'no chain txs'.

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 actionable guidance: platform defaults to pumpfun, bags/zora require enablement checks, prefer explicit crew[] from crew_list_kols with Autohire as fallback. However, it never explicitly states the primary use case—running this before crew_launch to preview—so the agent must infer why to pick it over the real launch tool.

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