manage_sessions

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds the configurable domains but does not disclose side effects, preconditions, or failure modes (e.g., hosting a LAN server may require port availability, voice settings may affect connected clients). It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 a single sentence front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Configure local multiplayer') followed by a colon-delimited list of feature areas. There is no filler or redundant detail, making it concise and scannable.

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?

This is a highly complex tool with 32 parameters, 16 action enum values, nested objects, and no output schema. The one-line description is insufficient to orient an agent across the many distinct actions; it does not mention that the action parameter is the dispatcher or explain how parameters map to specific actions. The schema provides details, but the description leaves a significant gap for such broad functionality.

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 88% across 32 parameters, so the schema already provides detailed parameter meaning. The description only groups parameters thematically (split-screen, LAN, voice, PTT) without adding semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure local multiplayer' and then enumerates the concrete capabilities (split-screen layouts, LAN hosting/joining, voice chat channels, push-to-talk). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like manage_audio or manage_networking by focusing on session-level multiplayer configuration.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when configuring local multiplayer sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it does not reach level 5. The context is unambiguous enough to guide tool selection.

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