Advance the world time

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

Annotations only mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does so well: the operation writes world time, triggers effects/calendars/modules, requires the write switch, and reads back the new time. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core operation and immediately clarify the negative-number case, followed by useful magnitude examples and the permission requirement. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, direction, scale, system reaction, permission requirement, and read-back behavior. It could mention the ten-year limit, but that is already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by giving concrete duration equivalents ('3600 is an hour and 86400 a day') and reiterating the direction semantics for negative numbers, which helps an agent reason about valid values.

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 and resource: 'Move the world time forward' by seconds through Foundry. It distinguishes itself from read-only time tools (e.g., get-world-time) by emphasizing that effects, calendars, and modules react, and it clarifies that negative numbers move time backward.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the GM wants the world clock to advance in-game so systems react as at the table. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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