Prepare an experience launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers meaningful context: the authorization is one-time and time-limited, and explicit user consent is a precondition. It still omits what the returned request looks like, how long it lives, and whether it can be reused or must be regenerated, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero filler. The consent precondition is front-loaded and the follow-up call is named last, matching the order in which the agent must reason about them.

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 three-parameter consent-flow tool with a nested context_envelope and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and next step adequately. The main gap is return-value behavior — no output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the generated authorization request contains or how it is handed to launch_experience.

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 experience_id, context_envelope, and requested_scopes are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to scopes and the experience module at a conceptual level and adds no syntax, selection, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb and resource — generating a one-time, time-limited authorization request for the user-selected experience module — and names the sibling it precedes (launch_experience). An agent can distinguish this preparatory step from launch_experience without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: the host must show scopes to the user, obtain explicit consent, then call launch_experience. This tells the agent both when to use this tool and what must happen before the follow-up call. It does not, however, mention alternatives such as get_consent_status or revoke_consent, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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