Paste a schematic file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does explain non-obvious behaviors: default origin at min corner, use_offset applying the file's stored offset, and ignore_air preserving surroundings. However, it omits broader side effects like block overwrite and the snapshot/undo default.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the key file types and origin behavior are front-loaded, and each sentence contributes useful information.

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 an 11-parameter world-mutating tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers formats and the most non-obvious flags but omits the mutating/undo context and overwrite semantics. It is minimally viable for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 55%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for origin, use_offset, and ignore_air, but leaves label, mirror, and rotation to inference, though the enums make those somewhat self-explanatory.

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 ('Paste') with named resource types (Sponge .schem, vanilla .nbt) and clarifies the core behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from read/save siblings like save_schematic and schematic_info.

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 choose paste_schematic over build, place_shape, or schematic_write, nor when to avoid it. The only usage-like detail is toggling use_offset/ignore_air, which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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