set_build_live

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description isn't the sole source of the risk profile. It nonetheless adds valuable context: publisher-key auth, Web API nature, the dry-run safety workflow, and the guarantee that the default branch is never touched. It stops short of stating exactly what happens to players currently on the branch.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, the safety workflow second, and the boundary condition last. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the critical safety/mutation workflow is covered. The remaining gap is the unexplained path/app/description parameters against 7 params at 0% schema coverage, which leaves a little ambiguity for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does clarify branch, dry_run (must precede the live call), and user_confirmed (explicit agreement) implicitly. However, path, app, and description are never explained, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (set live) and resource (an uploaded build) scoped to a beta branch, and explicitly excludes the default branch. An agent can immediately tell this apart from generic build or status siblings.

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 explicit ordering (dry run first), a precondition (only after the user explicitly agreed), and an alternative workflow for the excluded case (do it in Steamworks Settings > SteamPipe > Builds). Nothing is left to inference about when to invoke it.

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