Lightning, explosions, sounds, particles

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-readOnly, and non-idempotent; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: effectOnly makes lightning harmless, breakBlocks destroys terrain, fire ignites, sounds are heard nearby, and unsupported particle types are called out. It still leaves some consequences of explosions and lightning unstated, so not a 5.

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?

It is a single compact paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and then one sentence per effect type; no sentence is wasted. It could be slightly better organized as a list, and the opening line is less precise than the rest, so 4.

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 15-parameter multi-mode destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all four modes and key caveats, while annotations cover the safety profile and schema covers coordinates and defaults. Remaining gaps are mostly tool-selection guidance rather than invocation-critical detail.

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 93%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds real meaning for key mode-specific parameters (effectOnly, power with TNT=4, breakBlocks/fire, sound and particle examples, unsupported particle keys), which lifts it above the baseline 3.

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 first sentence is vague ('Make something happen at a location'), but the following sentences name four concrete effect types and what each does, so an agent can tell this is an environmental-effects tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as run_command or set_effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives mode-specific hints, such as effectOnly making lightning harmless, but never states when to choose world_effect over run_command, set_blocks, spawn_entity, or set_effects. Usage is implied by the kind enum rather than explicitly routed.

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