new_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the initial void state and the DataVersion upgrade semantics, but says nothing about whether creating clobbers an existing structure of the same name, whether it needs an explicit save, or what happens on invalid sizes.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical and version note both carry real 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a mutating create tool with 4 undocumented required parameters and no annotations, the description leaves key gaps: overwrite behavior, persistence/save lifecycle, and size validation.

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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters. The description meaningfully explains only minecraft_version (defaulting semantics and upgrade behavior); name, size_x, size_y and size_z are undocumented in both schema and description, including units or valid ranges for the dimensions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create an empty structure') and clarifies the initial state (structure void until blocks are placed), which separates it from open_structure and save_structure. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, e.g. no mention that you later call save_structure or that open_structure handles existing files. The minecraft_version advice ('use the OLDEST version you target') is genuine usage guidance but applies to one parameter, not the tool choice.

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