Result set time

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

Annotations already disclose non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the '(seconds)' unit; it does not say whether setting a time outside the loaded range is clamped or errors, nor whether playback must be paused first.

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 eight-word sentence with the action and the unit front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padding.

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 one-parameter setter with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It only leaves open edge-case behavior (out-of-range values, interaction with the playback toggle), which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 the single 'time' parameter carries its own unit description ('재생 시점 (초)'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's '(seconds)' merely echoes the schema rather than adding constraints, ranges, or format detail.

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') plus the resource and scope ('result viewer playback time'), which distinguishes it from the nearby result_set_playback_speed and result_toggle_playback siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource is concrete enough for correct selection.

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 guidance on when to use this versus result_toggle_playback, result_set_playback_speed, or result_add_graph_probe, and no prerequisites (e.g. results must be loaded) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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