Start a Balatro run

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

Despite destructiveHint=true, the description discloses a key behavioral nuance: it will not overwrite or reset an existing game. It also adds a state restriction (MENU only). These details go well beyond the annotations and help the agent predict side effects.

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 one compact sentence that states two crucial constraints without any redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 availability and non-destructive behavior, but since there is no output schema, it doesn't explain what the tool returns or how expected_state_token relates to the call flow. It's adequate for a simple action but leaves some operational context implicit.

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 schema already provides descriptive text for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. The description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool name and title clearly state 'Start a Balatro run', and the description adds scope by specifying it only works in MENU and won't overwrite an existing game. This differentiates it from all in-run sibling tools (play, discard, buy, etc.).

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: '仅 MENU 可用' (only available in MENU). It also clarifies it won't reset an existing run. It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so this is a clear contextual guideline.

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