Start Eden Game

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the main action ('Start Eden and open a base game file') and an optional update installation, which implies file mutation. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, dependencies, or what happens when the update is applied. The lack of detail on how the update modifies the game makes transparency minimal.

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 that front-loads the primary purpose ('Start Eden and open a base game file') and then covers the optional update behavior succinctly. Every word contributes essential information without fluff or repetition.

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 complexity of a 10-parameter launch tool, this description is incomplete. It does not mention the wait_until stages (process_started, control_ready, game_ready) which are central to the tool's behavior, nor does it address session_id or how it relates to session management siblings like eden_create_session. The output schema may cover returns, but the description misses key contextual workflow details.

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 for 10 parameters. It only implicitly explains base_path ('base game file') and update_path ('separate update'), leaving eden_path, timeout_s, fullscreen, wait_until, expect_patch, application_id, and keep_running_on_timeout unexplained. This provides minimal value beyond the raw schema for the majority of parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start Eden and open a base game file.' This clearly distinguishes it from stopping or validating tools like eden_stop and eden_validate_launch. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies this is the tool for starting the game, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions an optional update step 'when the Eden control endpoint is available', which is a usage condition, but it does not exclude cases or mention alternatives. This makes usage guidance merely implied rather than explicit.

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