Start the FiveM client

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add what they cannot. It does so by disclosing the non-blocking return ('Returns immediately') and pointing at the status tools that reveal when the game is actually up — genuine behavioral context. It still omits what happens if a client is already running, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the optional variant before operational notes. The 'Default target is the configured game port' sentence largely duplicates the schema default, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 one-optional-param mutation tool with no output schema and solid annotation coverage, the description supplies the key missing piece — that it is asynchronous and how to observe readiness. The only gap is the undefined behavior when the game is already launched.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying connectTo to the 'fivem://connect link' concept and restating the default target. That is a modest but real semantic addition over the structured field.

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 specific verb and resource ('Launch FiveM'), plus the optional scope (straight into a server via the fivem://connect link). No sibling tool launches the client, so the purpose is unambiguously separable from quit_game, window_status, and client_command.

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?

It gives clear context for use and routes the agent to the right follow-up tools ('watch window_status/client_command to see when the game is up'), which is exactly the sequencing an agent needs. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. re-launching while already running), but no real alternative tool exists, so 4 is appropriate.

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