ue_configure_pie

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral info (one_process faster launch), but fails to disclose side effects, safety, idempotency, or what exactly is configured (e.g., project settings).

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 configuration tool with 3 parameters, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics well. However, it lacks information about return values (likely void), error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., open project), or behavior when called multiple times. Reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter's meaning: num_players as number of client windows, net_mode with enum-like explanation, one_process with performance implication. This adds critical value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool configures Play In Editor for multi-client local multiplayer testing. It uses specific verb 'configura' and resource 'Play In Editor multi-client'. Among siblings like ue_start_pie and ue_stop_pie, this tool is distinguished as the configuration step.

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?

The description explains parameters (num_players, net_mode, one_process) which guide usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like ue_start_pie or ue_stop_pie. No when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.

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