theotown_set_speed

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful semantic content by mapping 0 to Pause and 4 to Max, but it says nothing about whether the change persists across sessions, whether it affects an in-progress simulation, or whether it requires an active game — meaningful gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the value legend. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant information (what the values mean) arrives first.

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 one-parameter setter with an output schema present, the definition covers the parameter fully and need not explain return values. The only residual gap is operational context — whether the game must be running and whether speed changes persist — which keeps it short of perfect.

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, and it does so completely for the single parameter: each of the five enum values is named with its in-game meaning rather than left as bare integers. An agent can choose the correct value without guessing what '3' means.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Set") with a specific resource ("game simulation speed") and immediately enumerates every accepted value with its meaning. No sibling tool (build/demolish/job/status) could be confused with a simulation-speed setter, so the purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for changing game speed, and the enumeration of 0=Pause clarifies the practical intent. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. a game must be loaded), and no exclusion of any kind.

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