Place blocks

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it concretely discloses that prior content is irrecoverably gone, that physics=true triggers neighbor updates (sand falls, water flows), and that the server caps volume at 32768 blocks by default — exactly the side effects and limits an agent needs before a mutation.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the two modes, then mode behavior, then side effects and the safety warning. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the slightly run-on mode sentence could be tightened.

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 destructive, nested-schema mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers modes, limits, and side effects well. It omits mutual exclusivity of `blocks` vs `box` and any sense of the success/failure response, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage and nested objects, the description carries the load: it explains the 64-item cap on `blocks`, the block-state string format with examples, the inclusive corner semantics of `box`, the mode enum meanings, and what `replace` targets. It does not address the `world` parameter or what happens when both `blocks` and `box` are supplied.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Place ... blocks') and immediately distinguishes its two operating shapes: a list of up to 64 single blocks versus a corner-to-corner box fill. An agent can tell this apart from read-only siblings like get_block without opening the schema.

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 tells you which mode to pick and what each box mode does ('replace' sets everything, 'keep' only fills air, 'replace_type' only changes blocks of type `replace`), plus a caution to confirm large changes with the user. It never names an alternative sibling tool or states when not to use this, so it stops short of a 5.

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