Launch an experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the token is one-time (一次性) and that the call creates a stateful local session, but it omits failure modes, token-reuse behavior, and session lifecycle details an agent would need.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that combines the action with its prerequisite and side effect. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more explicit about the trigger condition.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing workflow context (token provenance and session side effect). It is adequate, with only minor gaps around error and lifecycle behavior.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only re-frames consent_token as a one-time authorization token. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource (启动体验 / launch an experience) and adds a concrete outcome (创建一个有状态的本地会话). It distinguishes itself from the sibling prepare_experience_launch by naming it as the token source, though it doesn't contrast with continue_experience or finish_experience.

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 clearly establishes the prerequisite: the one-time token must come from prepare_experience_launch, implying the correct call order. No explicit when-not conditions are given, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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