blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'placement, area filling, terrain queries' which implies both read and write operations, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, destructive effects, or response formats. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate disclosure.

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 extremely concise (6 phrases separated by commas) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with key concepts. However, the comma-separated list format lacks grammatical structure and reads more like tags than a coherent description.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, doesn't clarify that 'action' determines which other parameters are relevant, and provides no information about return values or error conditions. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'placement, area filling, terrain queries' which loosely maps to some action values but doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 lists multiple operations (placement, area filling, terrain queries) but doesn't specify a single clear purpose or verb. It mentions 'block operations' which is tautological with the tool name 'blocks'. While it gives a sense of scope, it lacks a specific action statement that distinguishes it from sibling building tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling building tools (build_cube, build_sphere, etc.) is provided. The description mentions 'single blocks, large areas' which implies some scope but doesn't clarify when to choose this over specialized building tools. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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