Змінити ігровий час

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It honestly signals a state-mutating operation ('sets game time') and names the underlying command, but it doesn't disclose that the change affects the whole server's time-of-day globally, that operator privileges may be required, or what happens on invalid input. This is adequate but thin.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place: the operation, the accepted value forms, and the canonical command mapping. Nothing needs to be cut or reordered.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with one required field and no nested objects, the description plus schema give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly: the value format is explained and the optional timeout is schema-documented. The only real gap is the absence of any indication of confirmation/return behavior, which is minor for a command-wrapper tool.

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 only 50% — the required 'value' parameter has no schema description, while timeout_ms is alreadily documented. The description compensates for the gap by explaining that value is a tick count OR a keyword, adding the 'тіків' meaning that the bare integer constraint in the schema lacks.

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 has a specific verb and resource — 'Встановлює ігровий час' (sets game time) — and goes further to specify the accepted input forms: a tick count or one of four keywords. The '/time set' reference anchors the tool to a known Minecraft command. However, it never names or contrasts any sibling, so differentiation from mc_set_weather rests on the inherent time-vs-weather distinction rather than explicit guidance.

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 agent can infer this is the tool for changing game time, and the description clarifies the two accepted value formats. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives (notably mc_command, which could issue '/time set' directly), and no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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