Add directories to a launched project

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost model ('no launch is spent', 'free allowance') and two concrete error outcomes, which is exactly the kind of consequence info an agent needs before mutating. It stops short of describing the success result or whether the change can be undone, leaving a small gap given there is no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its cost implication, then the required prerequisite, then the error semantics. No sentence restates the name or the schema.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and non-destructive annotations, the description supplies the prerequisite flow, cost behavior and error paths, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only omission is what a successful call returns or changes, which matters slightly more here because there is no output 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by tying the include path to the free-allowance limit and to the allowance_exhausted error, and by anchoring confirm_selected to preview_launch's reported count. The exclude / excluded_directories distinction 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 specific verb and resource ('submits a launched project to more directories') plus the crucial scope qualifier 'from its free allowance (no launch is spent)', which separates it from launch_project and preview_launch. An agent can tell exactly which operation this is 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 prescribes the workflow: 'Call preview_launch with the same arguments first and get the user to agree', naming the sibling to use as a prerequisite and the human-confirmation gate. It also names the failure conditions (allowance_exhausted, invalid_directories) that tell the agent when to stop and re-plan.

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