build_game

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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the lone readOnlyHint=false: the call is asynchronous, returns a job handle immediately rather than the result, and the build outcome only surfaces later via job_status/job_wait. Permission requirements and failure modes are not covered, but the async contract is the key non-obvious trait and it is stated plainly.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and async return come first, then the follow-up workflow. No filler, and every clause adds either mechanics or routing information.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obliged to detail the returned job shape, and it correctly does not. Combined with the async explanation and parameter example, an agent has what it needs to invoke and then poll; only discovery of valid preset/target values is left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains that preset and target compose a <preset>.<target> build string and gives a worked example ('Development' / 'Windows'). It misses where valid values come from (e.g. project_targets), which would have fully closed the gap.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Starts a game build") and even shows the underlying command form with an example preset/target, which makes the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like build_generate_projects or build_compile_scripts, so an agent must infer that this is the full game-build step rather than a project or script step.

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?

Gives clear follow-up guidance: use job_status or job_wait after calling, and explains why (a real build takes minutes). It does not state exclusions or when to prefer the sibling build_* steps instead, leaving that routing to the agent.

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