ue_package_start

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: long operation, background execution, editor must be closed, produces standalone executable. It does not cover failure modes or concurrency limits, but the details are sufficient for safe use.

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: first paragraph covers purpose and key traits, second gives usage flow, then parameter list. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, and important details are 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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage flow, parameter details, and behavioral traits. It lacks return value info but references ue_package_status for monitoring, making it fairly complete.

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%, but the description explains 7 of 8 parameters (all except engine_version) with defaults, examples, and usage notes. This adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema, e.g., maps notes on omission and slower cooking.

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: 'Crea il pacchetto giocabile del gioco (cook + build + stage + pak)' and specifies it produces a standalone executable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_build_start (which only builds) and ue_package_status (which monitors).

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 provides clear context: it runs in background, is long, and must follow ue_editor_close and precede ue_package_status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for only building use ue_build_start), so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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