advance_effect_durations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the timing ('end of each round') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what effects are advanced, if it's idempotent, permission requirements, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no structured safety hints.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and usage timing efficiently.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what effects are advanced, the result of the operation, error conditions, or dependencies, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'target_id', 'target_type', 'rounds', or 'sessionId' represent in context. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters, especially given the low coverage.

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 verb ('advance') and resource ('round-based effect durations'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'advance_corpse_decay' or 'advance_heat_decay', which also advance durations of different effects, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides clear context on when to use it ('Call at end of each round'), which is helpful for timing. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives, such as other effect management tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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