Renforge Launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: it discloses the 20-second wait ceiling, the status="starting" background-startup contract, and that timeout governs the startup deadline rather than the MCP call. It omits the 'reuse' semantics when a game is already running and the effect of cleanup_on_stop=true, leaving some mutation behavior undisclosed.

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 with purpose, then workflow, then behavioral caveats; every paragraph is scannable. The click/verify/stop workflow is arguably beyond this tool's own contract, adding mild length without harm.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still clarifies the status field. However, for a 10-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, three parameters and the reuse/cleanup behavior remain unexplained, leaving real gaps.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains editor, warp (Ren'Py file:line target), display/audio defaults, savedir='temporary' isolation, and timeout semantics, but leaves version, persistent, and cleanup_on_stop entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Launch or reuse a game') plus the default condition (Live Editor enabled). An agent can distinguish it from renforge_launch_status (polls state) and renforge_stop (tears down) 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?

Gives an explicit post-launch workflow: poll renforge_launch_status until ready, observe with a fresh renforge_screenshot/renforge_scene_tree before any click, then renforge_stop. It names sibling tools but never states when to prefer renforge_launch over renforge_new_game or when launching is inappropriate, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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