Change the ground material to asphalt, concrete, grass, sand, dirt, or snow, and adjust its size and height for the scene.
Set the ground material: asphalt, concrete, grass, sand, dirt or snow. 바닥 재질을 바꾼다. size 는 한 변 길이(m), z 는 높이.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| z | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| material | No | concrete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a mutating operation ('Set' / '바꾼다'), but it does not disclose side effects, whether existing ground is replaced, how size and z interact with the material, or what the result of an empty call would be.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Korean sentence '바닥 재질을 바꾼다' partially repeats the English first sentence, adding minor redundancy, but the overall structure is still efficient.
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 a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but not complete. It explains material options and size/z meaning, but leaves gaps around defaults, whether size 0 is meaningful, how z is measured, and what side effects occur when changing the ground.
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%, so the description must add param meaning. It does: it lists valid material values and explains that size is side length in meters and z is height. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though z's coordinate context is not fully specified.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the ground material' with explicit allowed values. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like water, fire, smoke, or wind by targeting the ground specifically.
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?
The intended use is implied: use this when setting or changing the ground material. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.