Use held item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, requirements (e.g., must be holding an item), failure cases, or whether the action can be canceled. This leaves significant gaps for a game action 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 fluff. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not explain return behavior, edge cases (e.g., no item in hand), or interaction with the environment, which are important for an action tool in a complex game context.

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 coverage for the single optional 'player' parameter is 100%, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (right-click) and the resource (item in main hand), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like break_block, place_block, and attack. However, it does not explicitly clarify the distinction from interact_entity or place_block when right-clicking on targets, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state explicit use cases, exclusions, or mention that it is for activating items in air or on entities/blocks, so the agent is left to infer.

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