ue_play_in_editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It lists actions but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether PIE mode blocks editor interaction, whether state is preserved), prerequisites, or how the mode affects the editor. The action enum itself already conveys the basic operations, so the description adds little beyond that.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the tool's role, lists actions, and gives a brief use case. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, actions, and a use case. It lacks prerequisite or side-effect details, which are already accounted for in the transparency dimension, so the overall completeness is good but not perfect.

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 covers the single 'action' parameter fully with an enum and description. The tool description merely repeats the action names without adding any extra meaning about parameter format, defaults, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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 description opens with the specific resource (Play In Editor mode) and lists the exact actions (start, stop, pause, resume), making the purpose clear. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ue_set_property or ue_spawn_actor, which handle different concerns.

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 statement 'Useful for testing gameplay changes' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling tool directly overlaps with PIE control, the guidance is sufficient.

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