move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the call blocks until arrival, what happens on unreachable targets, whether collisions or enemies interrupt movement, or what 'normal movement state' excludes (e.g., sprinting). The reference to a 'normal movement state' hints other states exist but is left unexplained.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a movement action with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves critical behavioral questions (blocking vs. non-blocking, coordinate semantics, failure modes) unanswered.

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?

Both parameters (x, y) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only obliquely implies the parameters are a target position ('toward a target'); it never states coordinate units, frame of reference, or whether the destination must be reachable.

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?

States a recognizable action ('walk toward a target'), but the phrasing is vague: 'dedicated player' and 'normal movement state' are unexplained jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like mine or craft beyond the generic idea of moving. An agent can guess it moves the character, but the scope and specificity are thin.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus wait, mine, or the observe_* tools, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only implicit usage cue is 'toward a target,' which is not a when-to-use rule.

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