play_level_sequence_runtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the 'create a runtime player' side effect and the full return field list (valuable since there is no output schema), but does not explain what the destructive flag means for this playback tool or how the created player is later released.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact returns block. Nothing is wasted, though the returns list is a raw field dump rather than prose and slightly clutters the otherwise tight statement.

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?

With no output schema, supplying the return fields is the right call and makes the definition self-sufficient for calling and interpreting the result. It is slightly incomplete on lifecycle (no mention of pause/stop siblings for ending playback), but for a 2-param tool it covers what an agent needs.

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%: sequence_name and the world selector (including the PIE/Game-world requirement and editor-world refusal) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a runtime player and start playback of a Level Sequence'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings (pause_level_sequence_runtime, stop_level_sequence_runtime, get_level_sequence_status_runtime), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent must infer from the name that this is the entry point before pause/stop, and the description never mentions those sibling tools or prerequisites.

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