set_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Change the weather' signals a mutation but does not disclose persistence, reversibility, permissions, or side effects such as thunder implying rain or weather reverting. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing 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?

Three words, no filler; the core intent is front-loaded and immediately readable. It is well-structured for a simple tool, though terse enough that the lack of supporting detail keeps it from a 5.

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 simplicity—one required enum parameter and no output schema—the description covers the basic operation. However, it omits usage context and any behavioral nuances, so it is only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it adds no information beyond the property name; the enum values (clear, rain, thunder) are left to the schema. The phrase 'the weather' at least ties the single parameter to the intended effect, but does not explain the semantics of each value.

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: 'Change the weather.' This clearly identifies what the tool does, and there is no weather-specific sibling among the provided tools. It does not explicitly contrast with related setters like set_time or set_gamerule, so it stops 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?

No guidance on when to use set_weather versus alternatives; it only says 'Change the weather.' The sibling list includes other state-changing commands such as set_gamerule, set_time, and server_properties_set, but the description gives no selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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