start_game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two important behavioral constraints: only the room creator can call it, and a minimum of 3 players is required. However, it does not disclose what happens after a successful call (e.g., game state transition to active), what errors occur if conditions are not met, or any side effects. This is a minimum viable level of transparency.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. The action is stated first, followed by the key constraints. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

The description covers the essential preconditions for calling the tool, but given the lack of an output schema and annotations, it does not explain the return value or expected behavior after starting the game. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is a noticeable but not critical gap, making it adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the parameter roomId is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate here because the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('start a game') and the specific resource ('a game in the waiting phase'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_room or match_room. It also adds concrete conditions (creator-only, at least 3 players) that define the tool's scope precisely.

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 for when the tool should be used: when the room creator intends to start a game that is in the waiting phase and has at least 3 players. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., 'use create_room to create a new room'), so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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