調整世界設定

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

Annotations already indicate that the operation is idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds that exactly one setting is changed at a time and enumerates the setting types. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether changes persist, how the world is affected, or how durationSeconds alters behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence expresses the key constraint ('one setting at a time') and then maps each setting category to its value form with zero filler. 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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description need not restate return values or safety, and it covers the main setting categories. The notable gap is the undocumented durationSeconds parameter, whose purpose and applicability are left to inference, making the tool not fully self-contained.

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?

The description enriches 'setting' and 'value' with concrete examples (day/night/noon/midnight, clear, peaceful) that complement the schema's terse examples. But it leaves 'durationSeconds' completely unexplained and does not state that 'rule' is required when setting='gamerule', so parameter semantics are only partially conveyed.

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 uses a specific verb ('改' / change), a clear resource ('世界設定' / world settings), and an explicit scope: it changes only one setting at a time, with four named categories (time, weather, gamerule, difficulty). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like mc_run_command or mc_gamemode.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when a single world setting (time, weather, gamerule, difficulty) needs to be changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the category list and '一次改一項' constraint give sufficient context for an agent to select it over agent/command/block tools.

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