Break a block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that behavior varies by game mode and may time out, which adds value. Yet it omits other behavioral details such as whether the block drops items, whether the player must be in range, or what happens if coordinates are invalid. These gaps make it only partially transparent.

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 two sentences and every part adds value: the first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds crucial behavioral caveats. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity and complete parameter schema, the description covers the essential behavior including survival timeouts. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the tool likely returns a simple success/failure. The description is nearly complete for the practical needs of an agent selecting the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (x, y, z, player). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for good 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 action: 'Face and break the block at the given coordinates.' It uses a specific verb ('break') and a resource ('block'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_block and attack by focusing on block breaking.

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 by stating what the tool does, and it provides context about game mode differences ('Instant in creative mode; takes time in survival and may time out'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like attack or use_item, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as line of sight or facing direction beyond 'Face and break'.

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