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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is the nuanced destruction semantics: blocks that support other things survive unless with_attached is set, and restricted zones are skipped. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious consequence an agent needs before a destructive call, though nothing is said about reversibility or what a call reports back.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence ('Those something hangs on stay') is grammatically awkward and slightly slows comprehension, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key survival rule and zone skipping, but omits what happens on partial failure, whether removals are undoable, and what the response contains. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for a high-consequence operation.

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 75% and rows/columns/layers are documented there as '[from, to], or [one]'. The description adds real meaning only for the undocumented with_attached flag, explaining that it also removes dependent blocks — useful but limited to one of four parameters.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('takes out the blocks in a box'), making the removal-in-a-region semantics clear and distinguishable from place_blocks and look_blocks. The phrasing is colloquial ('box' rather than rows/columns/layers region), but an agent can still tell what the tool does.

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 implies usage (removing blocks in a region) but never says when to use this rather than siblings like remove_object, place_blocks, or edit_object, nor any prerequisites or cautions beyond the restricted-zone note. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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