Minecraft Ops MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive operation, the description reveals it's a 'high-risk operation' requiring explicit confirmation or dry-run mode. This safety-critical information isn't captured in the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's risk profile.

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 each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with essential information.

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 this is a creation tool with output schema available, the description provides adequate context. It covers the purpose, identifies it as high-risk, and specifies mandatory safety parameters. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling instance tools, but overall it's reasonably complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It references 'confirm' and 'dry_run' but doesn't explain them beyond what the schema already states. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('MCSManager instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'instance.clone_from_template' or 'instance.update_config', which also involve instance creation/modification scenarios.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating 'Requires confirm=true or dry_run=true.' This clearly indicates when the tool can be invoked (with either of these safety parameters) and implies when it cannot be used (without these safeguards). This is specific, actionable guidance for the agent.

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