mc_chest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that it mutates real world chests, that it is gated by mc_observe in forced mode, that `all:true` will move tools too, that `keep` protects items, that it re-reads the chest after moving, and that full inventory/chest/blocked-open are reported honestly. `dryRun` is also surfaced as a no-side-effect mode.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity and then a tight bulleted action breakdown, with the gating warning last. A few lines are flavor rather than information ("真·仓库", "攒家当就靠它"), and the bullets are dense, but almost every line conveys an operational rule.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: side effects on the world, the prerequisite gate, fallback behavior when no chest exists, the destructive edge of `all:true`, and what the tool reports back after acting. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is absent.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining the semantics that the schema only hints at — `all:true` really means everything including tools, `keep` is a safety valve for put, and `name`+`count` interact (naming an item implies moving all of it by default). It does not spell out the `radius` bound or how x/y/z combine with `action`, which the schema covers.

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+resource (chest/bucket storage on the server, explicitly not item granting) and enumerates the three actions (list/put/take) with their scopes. It also distinguishes itself from mc_give ("不是作弊给物"), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening the 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?

Explicitly says when to use each action (list default, put, take), when the auto-place fallback kicks in and how to disable it (`placeChest:false`), and routes to `mc_craft {name:"chest"}` when nothing is available. It also names the precondition of the mc_observe gate, which is a when-to-use condition, not just a warning.

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