ue_build_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the build runs in background, that the editor must be closed, that force is for stuck builds, and that builds queue on a mutex. This provides rich behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 well-structured with a header, a bolded warning, a typical sequence, and a bulleted argument list. It is informative without being verbose. However, the argument descriptions could be slightly more concise (e.g., 'forza una versione del motore diversa da quella associata' is a bit wordy). Still, it is well-organized and 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: preconditions, sequence, parameter details, and force usage. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value (e.g., a build ID), but the sibling ue_build_status implies the agent can check progress. Slightly more detail on the immediate result of starting a build would make it a 5.

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 must compensate. It explains each parameter: uproject (path to .uproject), engine_version (force different engine version), target (default '<Progetto>Editor'), configuration (lists three values), engine_root (path when engine not registered), force (use only when previous build stuck). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 'Avvia la compilazione del modulo C++ del progetto (in background).' This specifies the verb 'avvia' (starts), the resource 'compilazione del modulo C++', and the context 'in background'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like ue_build_status (which checks status) and ue_build_unblock (which unblocks).

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?

Explicitly states 'L'editor deve essere chiuso' and explains why (Live Coding prevents DLL writing). Provides a typical sequence: ue_editor_close -> ue_build_start -> ue_build_status -> ue_editor_open. Also clarifies when force should be used: only when previous build is stuck and processes are closed. This gives clear when-to-use and 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.