Set world time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set') but does not reveal side effects, such as whether the change affects all players in the world, whether it overrides the natural time cycle, or whether any permissions are required. The tick mapping is helpful but relates to parameter semantics rather than behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, immediately followed by a compact and useful tick mapping. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 setter tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning, but it lacks higher-level context such as when to use it over alternatives and what the broader effect of changing world time is. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for more behavioral context, which is only partially provided.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the time_ticks parameter by mapping specific values to times of day (0=sunrise, 6000=noon, etc.), which is absent from the schema. It does not add detail to world/player parameters, but the primary parameter is well explained.

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 the tool's function: 'Set the time of day for a world in ticks'. It identifies the specific resource (world time) and provides a concrete tick mapping, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_weather (weather) and get_time_weather (query). The verb 'Set' is specific and the object is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (to change the time of day) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it does not mention that get_time_weather should be used for querying time, nor does it distinguish from running a command. The usage context is clear from the purpose but not elaborated.

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