Place a block

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions using the player's inventory or creative mode, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the block is not available, if the target position is occupied, or whether placement consumes the block in survival. These omissions leave significant behavioral gaps.

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 with no redundant content. The primary action and key constraints are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main purpose and resource usage but omits potential failure scenarios, permission requirements, and behavior when the player is not specified. It's adequate for simple use but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all 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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the role of the 'face' parameter ('against the adjacent face') and explaining the 'player' parameter's relation to inventory/creative mode. This extra context elevates it above the baseline.

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 tool's function: placing a block of a specified material at given coordinates against an adjacent face. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like break_block and get_block_at, which have opposite or read-only purposes.

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 when to use the tool (to place blocks) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like use_item or interact_entity. It also doesn't state prerequisites such as having the block in inventory or being in creative mode, though the inventory mention hints at survival constraints.

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