Start game

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses the paused on-start condition and the side effect 'Replaces any running session.' That replacement caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral trait the annotations do not capture.

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 the core purpose, then modes, then return values, then the replacement caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long single-sentence block for the auto case, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return contents (mode, state, count of flagged notes) and warns about replacing a running session. Covers the essentials for a session-launching tool; missing only explicit prerequisites/auth needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the semantic of the 'auto' default (attach to live if available, else headless), which clarifies mode selection beyond the schema's terse enum descriptions. It does not elaborate on page or root, which are minor.

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 action (connect/start the game) and elaborates the three modes, making it distinguishable from siblings like game_stop, game_pause and game_state. It is clear but does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer when an agent merely wants to check status.

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 'auto (default)' behavior gives implied guidance on the common path (attach to live browser game, else start headless paused). However, it never states when to choose live vs headless explicitly, nor when NOT to call this versus game_pause or game_stop. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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