Deploy a game server

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

Annotations already declare non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden, but it adds genuinely new async semantics: the call 'returns immediately with a request_id' and the server 'has no connection details yet'. That tells the agent not to expect a usable address in the response, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its async consequence, with no filler. The final cleanup sentence is usage guidance rather than capability description, but it is short and operationally useful rather than padding.

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 7-param deployment tool with no output schema, the description covers the key unknowns: what it starts, what it returns immediately (request_id), and how to obtain the connection address. It leaves out failure modes, quota/pricing limits, and whether the deployment auto-expires, which would round out the picture.

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% and the nested users object is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates schema content ('placed near the players you specify') and adds no format, cardinality, or override guidance for cpu_units/memory_mb/env/tags.

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 ('Start one authoritative dedicated game server from an application version') and distinguishes the resource from siblings like edgegap_create_app_version or edgegap_create_relay_session. The scope ('one', 'authoritative', 'near the players') is precise enough that an agent can pick it out without opening the 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?

Explicitly frames this as 'the recommended way to host a multiplayer match' and names the required follow-up tool (edgegap_wait_for_deployment) plus a cleanup obligation ('Always stop deployments you started for testing'). It never states when to prefer this over edgegap_create_relay_session, so it stops short of a full when/when-not contrast.

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