Authorize a checked launch

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it requires an API key and explicit owner approval of displayed preflight plans, and it explains the two-step sequence where verified payment later triggers the authorized submissions. It does not describe what is returned or how failures and retries interact with the idempotency key.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The no-payment clarification is front-loaded alongside the authorization precondition, which is the highest-risk misunderstanding for an agent. Only minor redundancy between the title and the first clause.

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, four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers preconditions and the payment sequence but leaves the return value entirely unspecified. An agent does not learn whether a draft launch ID or status is returned, nor how this call relates to create_checkout or payment_instructions in the wider flow. Adequate but incomplete for the operation's complexity.

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 50%: idempotency_key and authorized_amount carry their own descriptions, while preflight_id and authorize_submissions do not. The description compensates partially by saying the draft is bound to a 'ready owned preflight' and that authorization must be explicit over 'displayed preflight plans,' which maps to those two undocumented parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does half the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'creates an unpaid draft bound to a ready owned preflight,' and explicitly negates payment ('this call does not pay'). This distinguishes it from create_checkout and run_preflight by scope. The opening clause about API key and owner authorization is a precondition rather than purpose, so the actual purpose arrives second, but it is still clear.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool applies to a 'ready owned preflight,' and the agent is told verified payment later queues submissions. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., create_checkout for paying, run_preflight for producing the preflight). The prerequisites are useful but the sibling routing is left to inference.

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