world_set

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does an excellent job explaining the defaulting logic and why the defaults exist ('a single default for both would make one of the two combinations a trap'). However, it doesn't address the purpose of the required timeout parameter or what happens when this tool is called (side effects, return values).

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?

Three sentences total: the first states the action, the second details the target/variable combination, and the third justifies the design decision. Every sentence contributes value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 setter, this is mostly complete. The tool's purpose is clear, and the explanation of the trap is valuable for an agent. However, the purpose of a timeout parameter on an apparently instantaneous operation remains a gap, as does what the agent can expect in return values.

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?

This dimension is where description value matters most with 0% schema coverage. The description adds significant meaning to target ('player' or 'hands') and what (health or quantity), which is necessary. However, timeout is entirely unexplained, and it's unclear if value is absolute or relative. The description partially compensates for the sparse schema.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Set health or quantity.' The description clearly indicates this is a setter tool without ambiguity about what it operates on, and the mention of 'player' and 'held item' provides context. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from more specific sibling tools like world_time_set or world_weather_set.

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 explains a nuanced defaulting behavior for the target parameter but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There's no mention of what makes this tool preferable or when not to use it.

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