Restart Steam with debugging

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers richly. It warns that Steam will close, that running games will be interrupted, that unsaved progress may be lost, that the tool refuses to run when a game is detected unless allow_interrupt_game is set, and that the operation typically takes 25-60s. For a destructive, side-effect-heavy tool, this is exemplary transparency.

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 compact, with no filler. The action is front-loaded first, followed by a prominent warning, the conditional refusal rule, the use-case trigger, and a timing estimate. Every sentence earns its place and contributes either to selecting the tool or understanding its impact.

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 a destructive restart operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to safely decide and call: what happens, when it is required, what can go wrong, how to override the safety guard, and how long it takes. No critical operational detail 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?

The schema already documents all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the refusal behavior tied to allow_interrupt_game ('the tool refuses to run if it detects a game, unless allow_interrupt_game is set') and by framing the operation as a prerequisite for collection writes. This situational context helps an agent reason about parameter trade-offs, pushing it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific and concrete behavior: 'Quit Steam and relaunch it with its Chromium debugger enabled, then wait for the library UI to finish loading.' This clearly identifies the operation on a specific resource and distinguishes it from the many sibling read/write tools like steam_status and steam_collection_create. The title and description align, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Required before any collection write when steam_status reports collections_write unavailable.' It also gives a clear when-not-to-use warning about running games and explains the safety escape hatch (allow_interrupt_game). This is practical, actionable guidance that tells an agent exactly when to invoke the tool and what to check first.

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