launch_jam

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing irreversibility ("This cannot be undone"), the outbound email side effect, and that Knowledge Agents begin responding in the background. The irreversibility note sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, but since the description warns explicitly rather than hiding the risk, it informs rather than misleads. It does not mention permission/auth requirements for launching.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then side effects, then follow-up routing, then args — a logical order with no filler. The Args block mildly duplicates the schema's default for send_invitations, but each line adds a constraint or effect.

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, irreversible state-transition tool, the description covers preconditions, side effects, background work, and the follow-up tool; an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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 must carry both parameters, and it does: jam_id is constrained to a draft Jam you created (state + ownership), and send_invitations is explained as sending the invitation emails with the default noted. The jam_id entry is still thin on format, but the pattern constraint lives in 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 specific verb+resource (launch a draft Jam) with an ownership/state scope ("a draft Jam you created"), which cleanly separates it from create_jam and get_jam in the sibling list. The immediate follow-on sentence ("The Jam becomes active") makes the resulting state change explicit.

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?

Names the prerequisites and alternatives directly: check the draft with get_jam first, and follow the run with get_jam_results. It also constrains the input to drafts you created, so an agent knows this is not for already-active Jams.

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