import_from_steamworks

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that it never writes to Steamworks, never overwrites existing file values, and that differences surface as conflicts for the user. This explains the otherwise confusing readOnlyHint=false + destructiveHint=false combination and clarifies concurrency/safety behavior the annotations cannot express.

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 qualifying condition, then the action, then the safety guarantees, then the workflow, then prerequisites. No sentence is filler and the sequencing mirrors how an agent should reason about calling it.

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 mutation tool with an output schema (return values need no explanation here) and non-obvious side effects, the description covers scope, safety, workflow ordering, and prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies dry_run semantics and enumerates the section values (matching the enum), which is strong compensation, but the 'app' enum (main/demo/playtest) and 'path' remain unaddressed.

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+resource+scope: read Steam data and fill EMPTY fields of steamworks.yaml, enumerating exactly which sections (store texts, achievements, cloud, installation, leaderboards, checklists) it covers. The 'already exists in Steamworks' qualifier immediately distinguishes it from tools like init_project or steamworks_inspect.

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?

Gives the entry condition ('a game that already exists in Steamworks'), the ordered workflow ('Dry run first; save with dry_run=false after the user agreed'), and the environmental prerequisite (publisher key for leaderboards, BROWSER mode for the rest). An agent knows when and how to invoke it without inference.

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