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

The description details behavioral traits beyond annotations: it blocks until arrival or ~20s, uses A* pathfinding, autosteps ledges, and explains the return object (arrived, blocked, distance_to_target_m). There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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 front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the exact return object field names, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description covers behavioral aspects, usage patterns, and return information well. However, it lacks explicit parameter documentation for the coordinate types and space, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'world-space coordinate' and the voxel grid, but does not explain the difference between continuous (x,y,z) and grid (gx,gy,gz) parameters or the 'space' parameter's meaning. This is a gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool moves the agent's body to a world-space coordinate and waits until arrival or timeout. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('walk your body') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like look_around or place_block that are not movement tools.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: a reliable build pattern (place_block -> move_to -> place_block) and a do-not instruction (do not retry place_block before move_to returns). It also advises picking an intermediate point if blocked.

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