Write a schematic file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it does not affect any server and writes to the schematic directory for relative paths. It stops short of revealing whether files are overwritten or what happens on invalid paths, but the key safety-relevant behavior is clearly stated.

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 two sentences with no filler. The most important behavioral constraint ('without touching any server') and path behavior are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 nested build and shape objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema covers parameter details well, but the description does not clarify whether build and shape are mutually exclusive, what happens on overwrite, or what the tool returns. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 low at the top level (25%), and the description does add some value by explaining that relative paths target the schematic directory and by mapping .schem/.nbt to file formats. However, it does not explain the two main modes 'build' and 'shape', their relationship, or when each is appropriate; it mostly relies on the rich nested property descriptions in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Save a build spec or a shape as a .schem (Sponge v3) or .nbt (vanilla structure) file'. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the offline/local intent with 'without touching any server'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'save_schematic'.

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 phrase 'without touching any server' implies this tool is for writing schematic files offline, and 'Relative paths go to the schematic dir' gives useful context. But there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements or named alternatives such as save_schematic, build, or place_shape.

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