replace_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely non-obvious behavior — that a bare name like 'stone_bricks' matches every state of that block — which an agent could not infer from the schema. However, it says nothing about persistence of the mutation, whether the change is undoable, or whether a structure must be open first, all of which matter for a write operation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the matching-rule clarification. Every sentence carries 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 not be described. But for a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves out coordinate semantics and preconditions (open structure, undo), so it is only marginally 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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partly does. It gives real meaning to 'old' and 'new' (block name vs. full state, with bare-name wildcard semantics) that the schema lacks, but the six x1/y1/z1/x2/y2/z2 box parameters are only obliquely referenced as 'a box' with no indication of which parameter is which corner or whether partial bounds are allowed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Replace one block ... with another') plus a scope ('whole structure or a box'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from closely related siblings like set_blocks or fill, which do similar block-writing work.

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?

'in the whole structure or a box' implies two modes of use and implies that omitting coordinates targets the entire structure, but this is never stated explicitly. There is no guidance on when to pick replace_blocks over set_blocks or fill.

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