Submit signed CREW launch transactions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by spelling out the per-chain sequence (create then lock, fee-share then create, 0xSplits then coin create), signalizing that multiple ordered on-chain writes occur. It does not state reversibility or failure semantics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with the dependency front-loaded and no filler; each clause carries platform-specific information rather than restating the name.

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 destructive, open-world, two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description supplies the source of inputs, the encoding per chain, and the ordering of on-chain steps. It could still mention what comes back (tx hashes) or how partial batch failures behave, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and delivers: it explains that 'signed' is Solana base64 for Pump.fun/Bags and EIP-1559 hex for Zora, and that 'platform' must match the builder's platform. Only minor gaps remain, such as the maxItems=8 batching limit and whether multiple signed entries are required together.

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 ('Submit signed transactions') and explicitly ties itself to crew_build_unsigned as the source, which cleanly separates it from the builder sibling. An agent can tell immediately that this is the broadcast half of a two-step flow.

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?

The opening phrase 'from crew_build_unsigned' plus 'Pass platform to match the builder' defines the required workflow and the constraint on invocation. It lacks an explicit when-not clause, but the dependency on the builder makes the ordering unambiguous.

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