ue_package_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses duration (tens of minutes initially), background execution, and prerequisite (editor closed). Does not detail error handling or overwrite behavior, but covers major behavioral traits.

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?

Highly concise and well-structured: purpose first, then behavioral notes, prerequisite sequence, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main function.

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 no output schema and complexity of a long-running background task, description covers intent, sequence, parameters, and status-checking. Lacks mentions of output location details or error logging, but sufficient for typical use.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining 5 of 6 parameters with examples (e.g., configuration values, maps format). Engine_version parameter is omitted from description, which is a gap. Overall good compensation but not complete.

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), producing a standalone executable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ue_build_start and ue_package_status by explaining the end-to-end packaging.

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?

Provides explicit context: must be used after closing the editor (ue_editor_close) and before checking status (ue_package_status). It mentions the operation is long and runs in background, guiding when to invoke. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', but the sequence effectively implies it.

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