Launch a Switch game

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

Annotations are all false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that updates apply only for the session, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like starting or stopping the emulator, or any state changes beyond the session update.

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 verb 'Launch,' and conveys the essential purpose and optional behavior with zero waste.

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?

For a simple launch tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema provides sufficient context. It could have mentioned what the return value or success/failure indication looks like, but that is not strictly necessary for invocation.

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 100%, with all three parameters already well-described (e.g., basePath formats, sessionId format, updatePath purpose). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Launch a user-owned base game file' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions the optional update application. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ryubing_get_status or ryubing_take_screenshot.

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 clear usage: to start a game, possibly with an update. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of launching a game is unambiguous given the sibling set. The mention of 'for this session only' also provides a usage constraint.

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