theotown_build_zone

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does almost nothing with it. It does not disclose cost, permanence, whether zoning is instant or queued, permission requirements, or what happens to existing structures in the rectangle — all critical for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the geometry is front-loaded. The brevity is appropriate in form, though it reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 five-parameter, zero-coverage mutation tool with no annotations, this is far too thin. The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but the missing zone_type semantics and behavioral context leave the agent without enough to call it confidently.

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 five parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning. It only echoes x, y, width, and height, and ignores zone_type entirely — including its default of 'residential_low' — nor does it state that width and height default to 1.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Designate') with a specific resource ('zoning') and states the geometric scope: a rectangle anchored at (x, y) with width and height. This clearly separates it from siblings like theotown_build_road or theotown_build_building, though it never explicitly says so.

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 guidance on when to choose zoning over the sibling building, road, or utilities tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as money, unlocked zones, or whether the action is queued as a job. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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