run_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context — this is a server-only, player-less simulation, so no client-side player state exists — but it says nothing about prerequisites (Studio connection, an open place), whether it disrupts an existing session, or how the run terminates (the sibling stop_playtest).

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?

A single short sentence that leads with the action and follows with the disambiguating detail. No filler, nothing redundant with the name.

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 no-parameter, no-output action tool this is nearly sufficient: an agent knows what it starts and what that mode means. The remaining gap is lifecycle context (that stop_playtest ends it and that Studio must be up), which is minor given the sibling list.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies to a no-argument action tool.

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?

Names a specific action (start) and target (Run mode), and the parenthetical 'F8, server-only simulation without player' concretely defines what mode is being started. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling playtest/play_solo tools, so an agent must infer which mode is which, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without player' implicitly signals when this is preferable to a player-inclusive playtest, but the description never names or excludes the obvious alternatives (playtest, play_solo). Usage is therefore only implied, not stated.

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