Advance the running game by exact frames

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=false, so the description carries nearly the full burden and does so well: it discloses the pause-first behavior, the exact engine call invoked, the 1..600 bound, and that exceptions are routed to the engine's catchException so they surface in live_diagnostics rather than crashing the session. That is rich operational detail beyond anything in the structured fields.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: purpose and use cases first, then mechanism, then error behavior. Each sentence adds information an agent needs, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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-parameter live-control tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it explains the mutation, the frame semantics, the `advanced` return delta, and failure handling. Remaining gaps are the default when frames is omitted and whether the session is left paused afterwards.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must compensate – and it does, explaining that frames is the N count passed to updateMain and bounding it at 1..600. It does not state what happens if frames is omitted, even though the parameter is optional (0 required), which is a small residual gap.

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 precise verb and mechanism: run N engine frames, pause, then call SceneManager.updateMain exactly N times, and stop again. The use cases (animation cycle, message window paging, battle sequence) make the intent concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling live_wait, which is the nearest alternative, 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?

Gives clear usage contexts – frame-by-frame watching of an animation, a message window page, or a battle sequence – which is more than implied guidance. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative such as live_wait or live_pause, leaving the agent to infer the frame-exact vs time/condition-wait split.

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