Till Soil Into Farmland

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it equips a hoe, walks within reach first, returns a message, and lists error conditions. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provides useful execution details. It could disclose more (e.g., hoe durability, whether tilling affects block states beyond farmland), but for a simple tool it is adequately transparent.

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. The first sentence conveys the primary purpose, the second adds a key behavioral detail (walking), and the final section lists return/error outcomes. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, this description is fairly complete. It covers the core action, a prerequisite (hoe), a behavioral note (walking), and likely error cases. It does not explain the coordinate system in detail, which could be a minor gap, but given the simplicity and domain familiarity, it is adequately complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It states 'at the given coordinates', which informs the agent that x, y, and z are Minecraft world coordinates specifying a block. However, it does not detail each parameter individually (e.g., y is vertical, coordinates are absolute). This is sufficient for a Minecraft domain but leaves room for interpretation, hence a middle score.

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's action: 'Equips a hoe and tills the dirt/grass block at the given coordinates into farmland, ready for planting.' This uses a specific verb ('tills'), a specific resource ('dirt/grass block'), and a clear outcome ('farmland'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like plant_seed, dig_block, and place_block by focusing solely on tilling.

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 implies usage: preparing a block for planting by tilling dirt/grass into farmland. It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but the tool is unique among siblings and the description's mention of 'ready for planting' suggests its purpose. Errors indicate conditions to avoid, like 'already farmland', providing some negative guidance, though not explicitly framed as usage guidelines.

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