omni_shape_solid_box

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that coordinates are inclusive and that it is one fill_area operation, but it does not disclose effects on existing blocks, whether the operation replaces blocks or only fills air, block default behavior, or whether it is synchronous. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core behavior. The inclusive-coordinates note is a high-value detail in minimal space. It earns its place, though it could add a little more context without becoming bloated.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema documentation coverage, this description is too sparse. An agent cannot tell what 'from'/'to' coordinates mean precisely, whether the operation is destructive, how blocks are placed, or what the fill_area op implies. Sibling shape tools likely share patterns, but the description alone is under-specified.

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 0%, so the schema itself provides only types and defaults. The description says 'Coordinates are inclusive', which clarifies the semantic meaning of from/to beyond raw schema. However, it does not explain block or meta parameters, or what the coordinates represent in the world (e.g., absolute vs relative positions). Baseline adjustment: description does add some value, but the gap remains for half the parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Solid cuboid (1 fill_area op)') and adds a key detail that it is a solid box, which distinguishes it from hollow-box and other shape siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource is clear.

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 implies usage: it creates a solid cuboid between two coordinates. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over omni_shape_hollow_box or other shape tools, but the distinction is reasonably inferable from the name and 'solid' qualifier. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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