Spawn entities

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: the server caps the count at 50 by default. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether spawned entities persist across restarts (despite a `persistent` param), or what the call returns.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one operational constraint that matters. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with a nested location object and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits return information (e.g., whether spawn results/entity IDs come back), permission expectations, and the meaning of most optional flags. An agent would need to guess at half the parameter surface.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not: `ai`, `glowing`, `customName`, `count` semantics, and the oddly placed `format` are all left undocumented. The description only echoes the `type` example and the count cap, adding almost nothing beyond the structured schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Spawn one or more entities of a type') plus a concrete example id (`minecraft:cow`), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like list_entities, update_entity and remove_entity. The scope ('one or more', 'at a location') is clear from the first clause.

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 purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., use update_entity to modify an existing entity, remove_entity to clear it) nor any stated prerequisites such as operator permissions. The only conditional information is the server-side count cap.

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