advance_world_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the entire world advances, that the change persists, and that all subsequent action executions will operate in the new time period with accumulated changes. This is exactly the kind of side-effect context an agent needs.

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 sentences front-load the core action, then give usage examples, then state the crucial persistence side effect. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and the important state-changing consequence. It leaves minor ambiguity about whether at least one duration parameter must be supplied, since no parameters are required by the schema.

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 all three parameters with full coverage (days, hours, months), so the description need not repeat them. It adds no further semantic detail about units or combination rules; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Travel forward in time... entire world advances') and clarifies the result is observing future states. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_world_time (reading current time) and execute_action (taking an action), even without naming them.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use this when you want to observe long-term results') and provides concrete examples for 2 weeks and 6 months. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it falls just short of a 5.

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