Start / Stop Using Held Item

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

Annotations already convey it's non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the semantic of 'right-click-and-hold', examples of interactions, and a return message format. It does not enumerate all side effects (e.g., item consumption), but the examples provide useful behavioral context.

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 compact: two sentences plus a return format note. It front-loads the core action and uses examples only where they add clarity, with no redundant or filler content.

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 only two parameters and good annotations, this description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does, gives use cases, and integrates with a sibling tool. A minor gap is not stating when not to use it (e.g., for eating use minecraft_eat), but the sibling list and examples make the intended scope clear.

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?

The description elaborates on the 'action' parameter by explaining start/stop with item examples, compensating for the missing schema description on that parameter. The 'offhand' parameter is well described in the schema, so coverage is adequate. The description could have explicitly mentioned offhand but is not required given schema coverage.

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 function: it starts or stops the generic 'use' action on the currently equipped item, with specific examples (shields, bows, potions, fishing rods) that distinguish it from more specific actions like shooting a bow. This gives a clear verb+resource+scope.

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 explicitly advises pairing with minecraft_shoot_bow for a ready-made bow-firing flow and calls out direct use for shields/potions. This is concrete when-to-use guidance that names an alternative tool and clarifies the integration.

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