editor_play_mode

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the call is synchronous ("Returns when the editor has reached the requested state") and bounded ("up to 30 seconds, so a heavy scene can load"). It does not mention side effects of entering play mode (script execution) or what happens if the 30-second window elapses without reaching the state, leaving a 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the constraint, then the blocking behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter state-transition tool, the description covers purpose, allowed values, blocking semantics, and the timeout bound, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter's schema description already lists start/stop/pause/resume, so the description's enumeration is largely a restatement. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as whether 'resume' is only valid from a paused state or whether 'start' is idempotent; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Controls play mode in the live Flax Editor") and immediately enumerates the valid actions, so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like editor_wait_for or game_command, which deal with waiting or in-game commands rather than editor play mode.

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 implies usage (you invoke it with one of four actions to transition the editor's play state) but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as game_command, game_commands, or editor_wait_for. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., editing mode required) are given, so guidance is only implied by the enumeration of actions.

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