Телепортувати гравця

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the core effect (teleporting), exposes that selectors can affect multiple entities, and identifies the underlying /tp command. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, coordinate interpretation, permission requirements, or what the caller receives on success or error.

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 a single dense sentence with the main action front-loaded and the parameter syntax summarized compactly. It is efficient and free of irrelevant details, though a short structured breakdown would improve readability.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the definition is usable but not fully complete. It covers the core teleport semantics and acceptable parameter forms, but omits usage context, error behavior, and side-effect notes beyond the basic movement. The 100% schema coverage prevents major gaps, but an agent still cannot fully predict call outcomes.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the coverage baseline is 100%. The description mostly restates the schema's target and destination explanations, adding only slight clarification through examples and the /tp reference. It adds no new semantic information about timeout_ms.

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 names the exact operation: teleporting a target to a destination, and it specifies both valid target forms (player nick or vanilla selectors like @a/@p/@e[type=...]) and destination forms (coordinates or another entity). This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings such as mc_say or mc_kick. The explicit reference to /tp also anchors the tool in the underlying Minecraft command.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially mc_command, which could potentially run /tp directly. The description explains what the tool does but never states conditions, exclusions, or routing rules. An agent is left to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and purpose.

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