xbox_launch

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

Goes meaningfully beyond readOnlyHint=false by disclosing that the call only succeeds for installed titles from the owner's list, requires the Xbox to be powered on, and returns a 'not confirmed' state until the console acknowledges it. That pending-confirmation behavior is a real operational trait an agent must know, and it isn't derivable from annotations.

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?

Compact but loosely worded: 'on the owner's own list' and 'on that list' repeat the same constraint, and the inline 'Title:' label inside a prose sentence reads like a schema comment dropped into the description. The core purpose is front-loaded, so it's serviceable rather than efficient.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, it covers the essentials: valid input domain, power precondition, and the caveat about unconfirmed results. Failure modes other than 'not installed' or 'Xbox off' are unaddressed, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter, and it does: 'title' means the words of a game on the owner's own list, which conveys the source of valid values and the constraint that it must be an owned/installed title. It doesn't specify exact string matching or ID-vs-name format, which is a minor 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 and resource ('Start a listed game') and its scope is clearly distinct from the sibling power/status tools. The second sentence muddies it slightly by shifting from purpose to parameter definition without a clear boundary.

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?

Provides preconditions ('only an installed title on that list starts, only while the Xbox is on') which implicitly tell the agent when the call can succeed. However, it never routes the agent explicitly: it doesn't say to use xbox_power_request first if the Xbox is off, or xbox_status to verify power state, leaving the agent to infer the alternative paths.

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