Shoot Bow

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive/open-world, and the description adds valuable context: full draw damage scaling, short draw behavior, return message, and 'no bow' error. It does not mention arrow consumption or possible block damage, but this goes beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a return/error line convey the action, damage trade-off, and failure case without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the verb sequence and keeps each line purposeful.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, return message, and primary error. A notable gap is arrow requirements/consumption—critical in Minecraft—but the overall picture is still well-rounded.

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 0%, but the description explicitly names the target point (target_x/y/z) and charge_ms, connecting them to aiming and draw duration. This compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though coordinate conventions and charge_ms units are left to the schema's integer type/default.

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 a specific verb sequence—equips, aims, draws, fires—tied to a distinct resource (bow), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like minecraft_attack_entity or minecraft_use_held_item.

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 intended use (firing a bow with charge mechanics) is implied clearly, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. It would be stronger with an alternative such as 'use minecraft_attack_entity for melee attacks'.

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