ue_package_start

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 discloses that the operation is long (tens of minutes first run), runs in background, and requires the editor to be closed. It does not cover all aspects (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), but the key behavioral traits are communicated effectively.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by important usage notes (duration, background, prerequisite) and a clear sequence. The argument list is succinct but covers all parameters. No superfluous sentences; every part adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: full parameter documentation, usage order, background execution, and prerequisite closure of editor. The agent can correctly invoke the tool and understand its behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and examples (e.g., configuration values, maps format, default output_dir). It adds significant meaning beyond the schema's mere type/title information.

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 creates a playable game package via a multi-step process (cook build stage pak) and produces a standalone executable. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like ue_package_status and ue_build_start by mentioning the sequence and background operation.

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 explicitly provides the correct usage context: after closing the editor and before checking status. It mentions the operation is long and runs in background. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the given sequence and constraints are clear and helpful.

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