launch

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world, and the description reinforces idempotency by spelling out the no-op path when the editor is running. It also discloses blocking behavior ('wait until its automation server answers'), which annotations do not cover. It stops short of saying what happens on timeout even though `waitSeconds` bounds it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the conditional behavior and the exclusion. No filler; every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema launcher, the description covers what happens, when it is a no-op, and the alternative. The only gap is failure/timeout behavior, which is minor given `waitSeconds` is fully documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real conditional meaning: supplying `project` opens that project, omitting it only launches the editor. `waitSeconds` is left entirely to the 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 concrete verb and resource: 'Open Effect House and wait until its automation server answers.' It also distinguishes the optional-project variant, so an agent can tell this apart from `run` and `status` without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly covers the exclusion case ('When Effect House is already running nothing is launched') and names the correct alternative for that case ('open projects from a `run` cell with `eh.project.open(path)`'), plus a pointer to `help('project')`.

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