advance_heat_decay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a processing action that likely mutates game state (heat decay), but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, reversible, has side effects, requires permissions, or what the outcome looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what heat decay entails, how it affects stolen items, what the tool returns, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by 'process' and sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 description mentions 'when game time advances' which loosely relates to the 'daysAdvanced' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'daysAdvanced' means or the purpose of 'sessionId'. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name and context.

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 action ('process heat decay') and target resource ('all stolen items') with a specific trigger ('when game time advances'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'advance_corpse_decay' by focusing on stolen items rather than corpses, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other time-advancement tools.

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 usage when game time advances, but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'advance_turn' or 'advance_effect_durations', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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