Rewind the live game

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does: it discloses the page reload, the input replay to the target tick, the paused end state, and the ~1 second latency. It also reassures that state is restored exactly, which is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the critical constraint ('Live mode only') and then packs mechanism, guidance, and latency into three tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, side effects, latency, resulting state, and next steps. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and already documents tick, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by tying the value to a note's tick and bounding it to the 'known session'. It doesn't add format/syntax detail beyond that, so it sits just above baseline.

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 specific verb+resource (rewind the live game to a tick) plus the mechanism (reload, replay inputs, stay paused). Distinguishes itself from siblings like game_step, game_replay and game_capture by naming the live-only scope and the exact resulting state.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage ('Live mode only'), gives a concrete trigger ('use a note's tick to look at the moment the human flagged'), and routes to follow-up tools ('then use game_state or game_capture'). The when-not (non-live modes) is stated rather than implied.

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