integration_code

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds the key behavioral fact that output is written to .steam-mcp/exports/code/<target>/ and 'never into the game', plus the scope of generated features — real information beyond the annotations.

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 lead sentence front-loads the deliverable and its constraints, then an Args block documents each parameter without repetition. The lead sentence is dense but every clause (output location, 'never into the game', name sourcing) earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and all four parameters plus the steamworks.yaml prerequisite and output destination are covered. Minor gaps remain: no mention of behavior when steamworks.yaml is absent or how this relates to `apply`/`check_code` in the workflow.

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 carries the full load and does: path is the game folder with steamworks.yaml, features lists the exact enum values and the 'default all', target enumerates the supported engines with a concrete mapping (godot = GodotSteam 4) and a default-derivation rule, and source_dir is explained as needed only when it differs from path.

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 names a concrete deliverable — Steamworks SDK integration code for the game's engine — and enumerates the covered concerns (init/lifecycle, achievements, stats, leaderboards, cloud). It is clearly distinct from siblings like `check_code`, `apply` or `generate`, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage context is clear: it emits code keyed to the app id and names in steamworks.yaml, and the target defaults to whatever engine/wrapper the project already uses. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to a sibling for overlapping tasks (e.g. applying the code).

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