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

The description usefully discloses that area and sample count are computed from the provided bounds and need not be tracked externally, and that overlapping blocks are valid. With no annotations, it still does not disclose mutation/update side effects, billing requirements, or persistence behavior, leaving part of the safety burden unmet.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes a distinct point: prerequisite relationship, computed outputs, and overlap validity. The grower example is slightly narrative but directly prevents a common misunderstanding.

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 tool with no annotations and 8 parameters, the description plus a rich input schema covers the essential mental model: create/update via block id, geometry bounds, overlap tolerance, and computed outputs. It could add an explicit mutation warning or billing mention, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 88%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that geometry drives computed, authoritative outputs (area and sample count) and by reaffirming the geometry param's overlap semantics. It does not elaborate on name/alias/base_temp, but those are already well covered in the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Save a plot of land') and states the upstream purpose ('so every other tool can work it by name'). This clearly differentiates block_save from list/read siblings like goodearth_block_list and goodearth_block_item_save.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call the tool: before other tools can reference ground by name. It also explains the allowed overlap/nesting rather than leaving the agent to assume duplicates are errors; no exclusion criteria are given, so it stops one step short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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