load_game

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description still discloses real behavior: it auto-detects the engine, mutates session state, and returns the available tool set for the game type. That is meaningful side-effect and return-shape disclosure, though it omits error behavior (invalid path, already-loaded game) and whether the session can be reset.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the two secondary effects (engine detection, session setup) trailing. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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 session-establishing tool with no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what comes back ('what tools are available for this game type'), which is the key missing piece otherwise. It is slightly thin on ordering relative to siblings and on failure modes, 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%, so both game_name and game_path are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format, path-resolution, or engine-detection detail beyond what is there. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Set a game as the active modding target', which is clearly distinct from read-only siblings like game_status, detect_engine, or open_game. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but an agent can still tell what this tool is for.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: calling this before doing mod work is the natural reading, but the description never says when to use it versus open_game, detect_engine, or game_status, nor whether it must precede the mod_* tools. No when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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