Force-load a chunk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'keep loaded … or release it' is consistent with an idempotent set-state operation, so no contradiction. It adds the useful behavioral nuance that loading persists without nearby players, but says nothing about how long force-loading survives (e.g., server restart), whether tickets accumulate, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core capability front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though 'or release it' is slightly oblique when a direct statement of the toggle would be clearer.

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?

Treated as a state-mutation tool with a 4-parameter schema at 25% coverage and no output schema, the definition is thin: it omits coordinate units, the world default behavior, and any indication of what the call returns or how the agent verifies the new state. 'Even with nobody near' partially restores that, but the missing parameter guidance is the real gap for a required-three-argument call.

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 is only 25% — only 'world' is documented — while chunkX, chunkZ and forceLoaded carry no schema descriptions at all. The description's 'or release it' loosely implies the binary forceLoaded flag, but it never clarifies that coordinates are chunk coordinates rather than block coordinates, which is the most likely invocation error.

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 conveys the resource (a chunk) and the state change (keep it loaded, or release it), which is a meaningful distinction from read-only siblings like list_chunks or get_block. It never names an explicit verb such as 'force-load' or 'set force-load state', and it does not differentiate itself from other mutation siblings such as set_blocks or world_effect.

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 'even with nobody near' phrasing hints at the motivation (keeping chunks ticking without players present), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives. With 39 sibling tools, including several chunk-adjacent ones, the agent is left to infer that this is not a listing or inspection tool.

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