roblox_play

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds lifecycle context (stop when finished), but never warns that 'stop' tears down playtest state or that 'start' mutates a running Studio session — meaningful behavioral detail the annotations alone imply but do not explain.

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?

One tight sentence with the core action front-loaded, then the follow-up workflow. No filler, though the semicolon-chained clauses pack three distinct pieces of guidance into one breath.

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, so return values needn't be described, and both parameters are covered by schema or enum. Still, for a destructive lifecycle tool it omits what 'state' reports and what the session must look like before 'start' succeeds.

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 coverage is 50%; studio_id is documented in-schema and action's enum self-documents state/start/stop. The description merely restates the same three verbs the enum already lists, adding no format, prerequisite, or validation detail.

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 set (get state, start, stop) and resource (official playtest), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like roblox_studio beyond naming the follow-up tools, but the lifecycle scope is unambiguous.

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 real workflow routing: use roblox_luau Server/Client for assertions after start, advanced tools for logs, and stop when finished. This tells the agent the ordering and the alternatives, though it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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