launch_dedicated_server

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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent/non-readOnly, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the operation is asynchronous and returns immediately, the launched server never self-terminates, and a second launch is refused rather than queued or clobbered. It even discloses the honesty caveat that only the testable half of the dedicated-server gap is closed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, and each sentence carries operative information (async behavior, polling tool, stop tool, single-instance guard). It is long, with engine-source citations that are informative but heavier than strictly necessary for invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape ({ server_started, already_running, command_line, note }) plus the lifecycle and termination path. An agent has everything needed to invoke and manage the process 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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents extra_args fully, including its format and an example. The description does not elaborate on the parameter itself, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('relaunches the CURRENT editor binary with -server -log') and precisely characterizes what the resulting process is (non-rendering, network-listening, GIsServer=true). It also explicitly distinguishes this from a real Server.Target.cs shipping build, so an agent cannot confuse it with packaging tools.

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?

Names the exact workflow dependencies: async like start_package_build, poll get_dedicated_server_status for output/exit, and call stop_dedicated_server to terminate since the server never exits on its own. It also states the guard condition (refuses to launch while one is running), which is explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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