result_set_playback_speedSet result animation playback speed to control how fire, smoke, or evacuation simulation outcomes are reviewed; 1.0 equals real-time.
Set result animation playback speed (1.0 = real-time).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speed | Yes | 재생 속도 배율 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries a lower burden. The only addition is the '1.0 = real-time' reference, which is value interpretation rather than behavioral disclosure; nothing is said about effects on a running animation or persistence. No contradiction with 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, well matched to a one-parameter setter. It is terse to the point of omitting usage context, but the structure itself is clean.
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 minimal one-parameter setter with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. Only the lack of any usage/routing context keeps it from being fully complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a single 'speed' parameter, and the description adds a meaningful anchor ('1.0 = real-time') that clarifies the scale beyond the terse schema text. This is a genuine semantic addition over the structured field, though it stops short of giving example values or bounds.
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 names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('result animation playback speed'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings like result_toggle_playback or result_set_time, which an agent might confuse it with.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as result_toggle_playback. Usage is only weakly implied by the 'playback speed' phrasing, so the agent is left to infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.