set_level_sequence_time_runtime

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the return shape, which matters because there is no output schema, but it doesn't clarify what happens on clamping or invalid time, and there is no contradiction with 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?

Two brief lines: purpose front-loaded, return shape second. No filler sentences, and the Returns line earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Annotated safety and an inline return shape make this usable for a 2-parameter runtime tool, but the meaning of requested_time vs actual_time and boundary handling for out-of-range time values are left unexplained.

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 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema (seconds >= 0, player_key origin), so the description adds nothing param-specific. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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) and resource (playback time of an active Level Sequence player), which scopes it apart from generic timeline tools like set_timeline_time. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the 'active Level Sequence player' qualifier gives an agent enough to distinguish it.

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 is implied rather than stated: the schema note that player_key comes from play_level_sequence_runtime signals a prerequisite, and 'active player' implies a running sequence. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives.

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