Mount Entity

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, open-world mutation. The description adds that the agent will walk to the target and specifies return and error behavior, going beyond the annotation flags. This adds meaningful context about what the tool does during execution.

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 concise sentences cover the action, target selection, walking behavior, and returns/errors without any unnecessary detail. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, target selection, movement, and error case. It is self-contained and gives an agent everything needed to invoke it effectively.

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 100%, and the entity_id parameter description already explains both use cases (omit for nearest rideable entity). The description only reiterates this, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Mounts' and explicitly lists rideable entity types (boat, minecart, horse, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from other actions like minecraft_dismount. It also specifies how to select the target (by entity id or nearest), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on target selection (by entity id from minecraft_get_nearby_entities or nearest rideable entity) and notes it will walk within reach first, which is useful for planning. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., dismount), but the context is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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