prepare_replay_launch

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is read-only and it never launches. It says nothing about what prerequisites are checked, permission requirements, failure modes, or what the validation result looks like, so the behavioral picture is only half drawn.

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?

One tight sentence with the safety constraint front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters mean the description must do more than a single clause. It omits what a successful validation returns, what makes a prerequisite fail, and how the path parameters should be supplied.

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?

All four parameters (game_dir, replay_name, documents_dir, content_manager_exe) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. The agent cannot tell from either source what form these paths should take or whether the defaults are meaningful.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only validation of CM replay-file launch prerequisites', and explicitly counters the misleading name with 'never launches'. It does not name any sibling tool (e.g. probe_replay_bridge or get_live_replay_status) to sharpen the boundary, so it stays 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as probe_replay_bridge or get_live_replay_status. The phrase 'launch prerequisites' only implies it is a pre-flight check, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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