set_datetime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: the value is not applied immediately and requires a reset. It says nothing about whether the model must be stopped, what happens if the time is in the past, or how failures surface, so mutation risk remains partly opaque.

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 short sentences with zero waste, and the format requirement is front-loaded before the deferred-application caveat. Every clause 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 one-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it sets, the exact accepted format, an example, and the reset requirement. Only secondary details such as timezone or preconditions are 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 the single parameter's format is already documented in the schema, so the description mostly restates it. The concrete example timestamp adds marginal value but no constraints (timezone, valid range, past vs future).

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 states a specific verb and resource: set the model start time (设置模型开始时间), which distinguishes it from the sibling set_stop_time by naming 'start' explicitly. It does not name the sibling or state what it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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: the note that a reset is required for the setting to take effect hints at when the change becomes active, but the description never says when an agent should call this instead of set_stop_time, set_run_speed, or control. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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