runtime_time_scale

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, not open-world), so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It discloses the return value ('the new scale'), which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about whether the value is absolute vs relative, how it interacts with a paused game, or session-resolution 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?

Two short sentences, the action front-loaded and the return value second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action and the return value, which is the key gap an absent output schema would otherwise leave. Minor omissions remain (paused-game interaction, valid scale ranges).

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 100% – 'scale' explains 1.0 as normal speed and 'session_id' explains the multi-session requirement – so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or range detail (e.g. whether 0 or negative values are legal), so baseline 3 applies.

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 pair and resource: it changes the speed of a running game (time scale). This is clearly distinct from pause/step/stop siblings by name and effect. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from a generic runtime_set, which is the only plausible competitor for the same effect.

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 phrase 'a running game' implies the prerequisite of an active session, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of paused/stopped games, and no mention of when to prefer this over runtime_set or runtime_pause. The session-selection rule lives only in the schema, not the description.

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