launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the two-phase behavior (preview vs. confirm), that the first call is safe (returns preview with costs), that confirm: true sends a real transaction, that wallet auto-creation is encrypted and non-interactive, and that dry_run never sends. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond what a schema could convey.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose statement, two-step workflow, wallet creation detail, transaction mechanics, and dry_run explanation. It is well-structured chronologically and avoids fluff, making it appropriately sized for a tool with 13 parameters and a multi-step process.

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?

Given 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a strong job covering the workflow, side effects (wallet creation, transaction submission), and safety (dry_run). It lacks details on the preview structure and post-submission behavior, but the overall process is clearly enough for an agent to operate correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaning by explaining that parameters act as 'override params' in the two-step flow, tying them to the repo-drafting behavior. It reinforces that confirm and dry_run control execution, which goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Launch the current project as a coin on pump.fun's bonding curve.' It uses a specific verb (launch), a clear resource (current project as a coin), and context (pump.fun's bonding curve). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet, info, and my-coins, which serve different functions.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: first call without confirm to draft and preview, apply edits via override params, and only call again with confirm: true after user approval. It also explains dry_run for simulation and notes the wallet auto-creation process, giving clear context on when and how to use the tool.

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