Open Steam's install wizard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that this is not a silent install, that the wizard must be manually clicked through, that nothing happens until then, and that the tool returns before the download actually starts. It does not mention potential side effects like disk usage or Steam account restrictions, but the core non-obvious behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 four sentences and every sentence earns its place: the core action, the critical warning against assuming silent install, the manual-click behavior, and the follow-up verification step. It is front-loaded and waste-free.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, why it is not silent, how to verify success, and that it returns immediately after opening the wizard. It does not specify the exact return value format, but the lack of an output schema and the simple 'returns as soon as the wizard is open' wording make this acceptable. The guidance to check steam_game_details later fills the main follow-up gap.

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 description coverage is 67%, and the schema already explains confirm's purpose and dry_run's behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, and appid remains minimally documented, but the schema provides enough information for the agent to use the parameters correctly. This is a baseline score for a tool where the schema does most of the parameter work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Open Steam's install wizard for a game.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from a silent install, and it is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like steam_uninstall_game and steam_game_details. The agent can infer exactly what action this tool performs.

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 clearly explains what to expect when using the tool: it opens a dialog that must be clicked through manually, and it returns before the download starts. It also instructs to check steam_game_details later to verify whether the download actually began. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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