build_paraboloid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Build PARABOLOID' which implies a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's destructive to existing blocks, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The parameter list adds some context but lacks critical behavioral details for a building tool.

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 brief but somewhat disorganized. It front-loads the purpose but then awkwardly lists parameters in a run-on format. While not verbose, the structure could be clearer (e.g., separating purpose from parameter guidance). Some sentences feel crammed together rather than optimally structured.

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 10-parameter building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or practical building considerations in Minecraft. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the broader context needed for effective use in a game environment.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description lists required and optional parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between radius and height, or practical building tips). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build PARABOLOID' with specific examples (satellite dish, bowl, dish, parabolic). It distinguishes from siblings like build_cube or build_sphere by specifying the geometric shape. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like build_hyperboloid or build_ellipsoid, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists required and optional parameters but doesn't mention when to choose a paraboloid over other shapes (e.g., sphere for domes, cylinder for towers) or contextual factors like Minecraft building scenarios. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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