place_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: no entity whitelist, engine-side collision and placement-rule checks, inventory requirement, and normal-reach constraint. However, it does not explain failure behavior, whether items are consumed, or mutation side effects, leaving gaps for a placement/mutation 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by key constraints and the blueprint alternative. No filler, though the term 'item.place_result prototype' could be simplified for readability.

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?

The description covers purpose, high-level placement behavior, and the main alternative. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool with five parameters, a nested position object, and an enum, leaving all parameter semantics undocumented is a clear completeness gap.

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% across five parameters, including a nested position object and an underground_type enum. The description only implicitly hints that the item must be a placeable prototype from inventory; position, direction, quality, and underground_type are not explained at all, so it largely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (build/place) and resource (any item.place_result prototype), and distinguishes the tool from blueprint plans for complete layouts. The Factorio-specific phrasing 'item.place_result prototype' is slightly jargon-heavy but still clear enough for an agent in this domain.

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?

Names an explicit alternative and when to use it: 'For complete layouts, tiles, wires and settings, use native blueprint plans.' Also states the reach constraint and that there is no entity whitelist. It does not explain when to prefer this over configure_entity, but the key exclusion is present.

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