Plant Seed / Crop

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it requires farmland/soul sand, may fail if the space above is occupied, and checks inventory for the seed. It also discloses return type and possible errors, which is especially useful given the sparse annotations (only openWorldHint true). No contradiction found.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a parenthetical prerequisite, a list of supported items, and a brief returns/errors section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary padding.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the core behavior, valid inputs, required preconditions, and failure modes. It does not explicitly state whether the seed is consumed or the exact message format, but these are minor compared to what is provided. Overall, it gives sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is low (25%) with only seed_item described. The description compensates partially by expanding valid seed_item examples ('carrots, potatoes, beetroot_seeds, melon/pumpkin seeds, nether_wart') and adding context about soul sand, but x, y, z semantics remain implicit (they are just 'given coordinates'). This is adequate but not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Plants' and the resource 'a seed item on farmland at given coordinates', with a parenthetical note to till first. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like minecraft_till_soil and minecraft_harvest_crop by specifying the planting action and supported plantable items.

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 usage context by instructing to 'till it first with minecraft_till_soil' and lists which items are plantable, including nether_wart on soul sand. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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