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

It discloses that the operation affects time-based effects/durations for all clients, which is important global side-effect context beyond the annotations. It also states the return value, which is useful because no output schema exists. The description does not contradict 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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, negative-value behavior, useful examples, and the global side effect plus return value. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, how to reverse it, common delta values, global effects, and what is returned. No important gap remains.

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?

The schema already documents the seconds parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying negative values rewind the clock and providing concrete common deltas for combat rounds, minutes, hours, and days.

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 clearly states a specific verb (Advance) and resource (in-world clock) with a precise unit of change (seconds). It also distinguishes itself from world-time-set/get by framing the action as a relative delta rather than an absolute set.

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?

The description makes the primary usage clear: advance or rewind the world clock by a delta in seconds. It provides common delta values but does not explicitly contrast this tool with world-time-set or world-time-get, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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