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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description goes further by disclosing the meaning of openingWarnings, why entries appear there, and the two remediation paths (rename the label or add an alias via update_entry). No mention of size limits or auth requirements, so not a full 5.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return contents and then the openingWarnings remediation. It is dense but each sentence carries actionable content; the mc_template and playable-config enumeration is slightly list-heavy but 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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return contents and highlights the one non-obvious returned field (openingWarnings) with remediation steps. It is complete for invocation safety, though the slug/worldId parameter ambiguity leaves a small gap.

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 only 50%: worldId is documented ('World id from list_worlds') but slug has no description. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented slug or explain whether both are required.

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 (read one world's full V4 state) and enumerates the exact contents returned: settings, rules, playable config, and mc_template roles. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_world_bible, list_worlds, and get_world_status.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this before update_world, and routes status-related needs away to get_world_status/set_world_status. It does not, however, clarify when to prefer get_world_bible or how this differs from list_worlds beyond the singular-world framing.

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