Run the game

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which says almost nothing about behavior. The description carries the load well: play SAVES open scenes (a real side effect not in annotations), waits until the in-game runtime connects, and returns startup errors; mute defaults to the editor setting and is forced on in headless editors; continue resumes after the debugger stopped on an error. That is meaningful disclosure beyond structured data.

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?

Front-loaded purpose and usage flow, followed by a compact per-action list with no filler sentences. Slightly dense with an undocumented 'settle' option, but every line earns its place.

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 7-parameter, action-dispatch tool with no output schema and only safe-by-default annotations, the description covers launch, stop, status, error retrieval (script file:line and stack), streamed output, and debugger resume. Return-shape and failure-mode details are thin but adequate for correct 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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds value the schema does not: it maps which parameters belong to which action and supplies defaults ('restart?=true, timeout?=20, mute?', 'level?=error'). One caveat: it references a 'settle?=0.5' parameter that does not appear in the input schema, a minor misalignment.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Play the game from the editor and read its output') and immediately distinguishes the tool from the interaction siblings by deferring them ('Then use game/input/view to interact'). An agent can tell it apart from 'game', 'input', and 'view' without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance ('Then use game/input/view to interact') and explains what each of the six actions is for, including easing back after a debugger stop via 'continue'. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. the 'game' sibling for non-editor launches), so there is no exclusion guidance.

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