swu_start_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose whether starting a game requires predefined decks, side effects on existing state, or what constitutes a 'game' (e.g., initial state, resource setup). The description only says 'start' without revealing consequences or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 a single concise sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple action. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so while it is front-loaded with the verb, it omits necessary details. It earns its place only minimally.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 12 parameters and no annotations. The description is far too brief to cover the complexity of starting a game, including the meaning of parameters, required setup, or behavioral nuances. It is not complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 has 12 parameters, all optional with defaults, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain any parameters, such as format_name, player_decklist, or starting_player. Since the description adds nothing to clarify these parameters, it completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Start' and the resource 'a two-player Star Wars Unlimited game between you and Claude.' It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like swu_simulate_game by explicitly naming the participants as 'you and Claude', indicating an interactive game rather than an automated simulation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having decks or validated game state. It merely states the action without context. Sibling tools like swu_simulate_game exist but no differentiation or usage scenario is given.

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