Use / Activate Block

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

The description discloses that the agent 'walks within reach first' and lists error conditions ('no block there, or unreachable'). Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false. The added behavior about movement and error handling goes beyond the structured data, providing useful context.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences cover the action and examples, followed by return value and error conditions. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, behavior, and errors, and annotations provide safety profile. However, it omits details like coordinate system and does not address the overlapping functionality with sibling tools (e.g., open_container, use_furnace), which could lead to incorrect tool selection in complex scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0%, leaving all three parameters (x, y, z) undocumented. The description only refers to them as 'given coordinates' without further detail, such as coordinate system, type, or valid ranges. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently provide correct values.

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 right-clicks a block at coordinates and lists examples (chests, doors, buttons, levers). It is specific with a verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like minecraft_open_container or minecraft_use_furnace, which could overlap.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies general block activation, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be preferred for specialized interactions (e.g., open_container, use_furnace).

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