Smelt / Cook Item in Furnace

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the full action sequence, the waiting behavior based on wait_seconds, the fact that it collects whatever is ready and can be called again, and lists errors. This gives an agent a clear model of side effects and state changes without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary, followed by a structured argument list, returns, and errors. Every section adds value without redundancy, and the language is precise and actionable.

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 multi-step tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the entire process, all key parameters, the return shape, error conditions, and the nuance of multiple calls for collecting output. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without missing expected behavior.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each argument's role, providing concrete examples for input_item and fuel_item, clarifying that fuel_item can be omitted if pre-loaded, and explaining wait_seconds in the context of vanilla smelting time. Coordinates are self-evident, but semantic parameters are well documented.

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 opens a furnace, loads input and fuel, waits for smelting, collects output, and closes the furnace, explicitly saying 'One call handles the whole loop.' This specific verb+resource+process distinguishes it from sibling inventory or container tools by automating the entire smelting workflow.

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 clear context: it is a high-level smelting operation, and it gives usage tips like omitting fuel_item if already loaded and calling again to collect more after completion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as open_container/container_deposit, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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