dig_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('dig/break') without any context about consequences such as whether the block drops items, whether a tool is required, if the action can fail, or if it triggers side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded phrase: 'Dig/break a block at specific coordinates.' It contains zero unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the tool's core function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable—it says what it does. However, it lacks any contextual details such as prerequisites, limitations, or difference from collect_block. Given the absence of annotations, this falls short of being complete but is adequate for a straightforward action.

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 provides 100% description coverage, with each parameter (x, y, z) already described as coordinates. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'specific coordinates', so the baseline of 3 applies—schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Dig/break a block at specific coordinates' uses a specific action verb ('dig/break') and resource ('block') plus coordinates, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like place_block, get_block_info, and find_blocks. It is concise and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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: when you need to break/dig a block at given coordinates, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from similar siblings like collect_block, which may have overlapping functionality. This is minimal but not absent, so it earns a 3.

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