place_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states where the block comes from ('from inventory') but does not disclose whether the block is consumed, what happens if a block already exists at the target coordinates, or whether the placement can fail (e.g., invalid coordinates). This lack of detail 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 sentence with no filler words. It is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness (e.g., mentioning what happens after placement), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits important context such as prerequisites (block must be in inventory), side effects (block removed from inventory), or failure conditions. The completeness is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the consequences of invoking this tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for x, y, z, and blockName. The tool description adds the 'from inventory' detail, which somewhat enriches the blockName parameter, but it does not provide meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already 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 clearly states the action ('Place'), the object ('a block'), and the location ('at specific coordinates'). It also specifies the source ('from inventory'), which distinguishes it from other block-related tools like dig_block or collect_block.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., block must be in inventory) or cases where placement is not appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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