teleport_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, failure behavior, handling of playerNum=-1 versus the default, or whether a running game session is required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently states the core purpose and earns its place without duplicating schema content.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics, but with no annotations and no output schema the description lacks context about multiple-player behavior, coordinate system assumptions, success/error reporting, and prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple invocation but not complete for robust decision-making.

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?

The schema describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the playerNum default and special '-1 for all active players' case. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'specific position', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the action ('teleport'), the resource ('a player'), and the target ('a specific position'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like set_player_health or spawn_entity. It does not explicitly address which player or player group is affected, but that nuance appears in the parameter schema.

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 'use when' statement, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives. However, the unique teleport semantics imply the use case strongly enough for an agent to select this tool over nearby siblings.

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