ac_launch

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the whole burden and does well: it discloses that race.ini is written (after backup), that video.ini is temporarily modified and restored by ac_quit, that acs.exe is spawned, and that it blocks on a bridge heartbeat before pressing Drive. It leaves the timeout parameter and failure behavior unexplained, so not a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the main action comes first, then side effects, then parameter caveats. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical stacking makes it slightly hard to parse at a glance.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the launch sequence and the two config-file side effects but omits the return value, what timeout controls, and what start_session toggles. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool this consequential.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains hour (08..18 range), window_width/window_height (>0 switches to a windowed screen of that size), and implicitly track via 'offline practice session'. It says nothing about car, skin, layout, start_session, or timeout, leaving roughly half the surface undocumented.

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 ('Start an offline practice session') and then describes the concrete mechanics: writing a temporary race.ini, launching acs.exe, waiting for the bridge heartbeat, pressing Drive. It also differentiates from the sibling ac_set_time for any non-08..18 time.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away for one case ('use ac_set_time for any time/date'), which is a real alternative with a clear condition. However, it gives no guidance on when NOT to launch (e.g. whether a prior ac_launch/ac_quit cycle must complete first) or on preconditions like the config state.

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