launch_terminal

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by declaring idempotency (an already-running terminal64.exe is left alone) and a refusal case (junctions, with the reason that MetaTrader would open a second data folder). It stops short of describing what happens on failure or whether launch is synchronous.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the accepted-identifier list comes first and the edge-case behavior follows. The line-broken layout with a dangling fragment slightly hurts readability but nothing is redundant.

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-optional-parameter launch tool with no output schema, the description covers the key input forms and the already-running/junction cases, but leaves open what is returned, whether the call blocks until the terminal is ready, and which of the two optional parameters wins if both are given.

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% and the raw properties are only titled "Path" and "Terminal Id", so the description must carry the load; it meaningfully explains that terminal_id accepts a registry id or a discovered id and that path takes any terminal path. It does not address precedence when both are supplied, nor the behavior when both are omitted despite required=0.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ("Start a MetaTrader terminal") and then enumerates the three acceptable identifier forms, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling use_terminal, which is the main gap.

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?

It gives implicit usage guidance by listing which identifier kinds to pass (registry id, discovered id, terminal path), which helps an agent pick inputs, but it never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as use_terminal or add_terminal, nor does it say what to do when no identifier is available.

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