Dig / Break Block

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description goes further by detailing what happens to drops, the auto-walk behavior, and the return/error scenarios. It also notes the required tool condition ('missing required tool') without contradicting the annotations—this adds significant behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 tightly structured: main action, key behavior, alternative-use note, and then returns/errors. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 simple tool with three numeric parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves, what to expect in return, and likely errors. It also situates the tool relative to a key sibling. No major gaps are apparent for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for x, y, z, and the description merely says 'at the given coordinates' without explaining that these are block coordinates, what range they accept, or any units. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings vague and potentially ambiguous for an AI agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Mines/breaks the block at the given coordinates') and immediately distinguishes from the sibling tool minecraft_collect_block by noting the difference in drop pickup. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly names an alternative tool ('use minecraft_collect_block instead if you also want the bot to auto-pick-up the drops'), which serves as a clear when-not condition. It also communicates an important behavior ('Automatically walks within reach first') that tells the agent it need not pre-position the bot. This is explicit, actionable guidance.

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