world_weather_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the engine continues simulating weather, so set values drift—a key non-obvious behavior. It also clarifies the meaning of seconds (change time) and duration (hold time). However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, permission requirements, or side effects beyond drift. The main quirk is well documented.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: it defines the phenomena, value ranges, the meaning of seconds and duration, and the nudge behavior. It front-loads the purpose and then adds necessary detail. It's not overly verbose; the drift warning is repeated for emphasis, which is somewhat redundant but acceptable.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple weather types, timing semantics), the description covers most essential aspects. It explains the operational behavior and the main parameters. The output schema exists, so return value details aren't needed. The missing timeout explanation is a gap, and it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., world must be loaded), but overall it's fairly complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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. It explains 'what' (the five phenomena), 'value' (range per phenomenon), 'seconds' (transition time), and 'duration' (hold time). However, 'timeout' is completely unexplained, leaving one of five parameters semantically undocumented. Since the description covers most but not all parameters, it's a partial compensation.

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 tool moves a weather phenomenon toward a value, listing the specific weather types and their value ranges. It distinguishes itself implicitly from other world_* tools by focusing on weather, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them. The purpose is specific and understandable, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides a critical usage warning: this is a nudge, not a lock, and values drift afterward. This is valuable context for when to use the tool (expect drift) but it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like world_time_set or world_set. There's no explicit 'when-not' guidance or comparison to siblings, so it's a clear but implicit usage note.

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