Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable context about the confirm/dry_run requirement for safety, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral aspects like what happens on failure, whether moves are atomic, or permission requirements beyond what annotations indicate.

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 perfectly concise - just two sentences that communicate the essential information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with the critical safety requirement. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary guidance.

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?

Given that this is a file operation tool with annotations covering key behavioral aspects (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world) and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. The confirm/dry_run safety requirement is appropriately highlighted. However, for a file movement tool that could have edge cases (permissions, path validity, cross-device moves), a bit more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the confirm/dry_run requirement generally but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond the schema's coverage.

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 states the action ('move or rename files') and resource ('in an MCSManager instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like file.copy (which copies without moving) or file.rename (which doesn't exist but would be similar), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 description provides clear context about when to use it ('Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites for safe operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (like file.copy for copying instead of moving), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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