Mark game started

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'start playing' implying a state change, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing progress, requires an 'unstarted' state), permissions, or idempotency. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very short (4 words), which is concise but sacrifices informative content. It is not wasteful but also not adequately informative.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, low schema coverage, and a 3-param tool, the description is far too minimal. It provides almost no context about behavior, return values, or usage, making it incomplete.

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 33% (only startedOn has a description). The description adds nothing about parameters, leaving metadataId and manualTimeSpent unexplained. Since schema coverage is low, description should compensate but fails.

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 'Start playing a game in Ryot.' clearly states the verb 'start' and the resource 'game in Ryot'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ryot_mark_game_completed or ryot_mark_game_dropped, which could lead to confusion about which tool to use.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ryot_mark_game_completed, ryot_mark_game_on_hold). The description is too brief to indicate prerequisites or context.

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