move-horizontally-and-down-using-steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Mine down multiple steps', which implies destruction, but it does not clarify that the player moves, that blocks are auto-mined based on the allowMiningOf mapping, that it creates a staircase-like pattern, or any details about failure, reversibility, or tool requirements. This is insufficient for a mining/movement 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?

The description is brief (two sentences), but the second sentence is redundant and contains a typo ('wile' and likely 'vertically' instead of 'horizontally'), which harms clarity. It is concise but not well-structured or error-free.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool (mining, movement, nested parameters) with no annotations and no output schema. The description provides minimal context, leaving out crucial behavioral information such as the staircase pattern, how steps are executed, and what happens when mining is blocked. The schema param descriptions help but cannot compensate for the lack of overall tool behavior context.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, including the nested nextStepPos, so the schema provides the necessary semantics. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence 'Mine down multiple steps' gives a general action, but the second sentence 'Good for going vertically and down at the same time' is confusing and contains a likely typo ('vertically' instead of 'horizontally'), which contradicts the tool's name and muddies what the tool actually does. It does not clearly distinguish from the sibling tool 'move-horizontally-and-up-using-steps' beyond the direction word.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. 'Good for going vertically and down at the same time' is an implied use case, but it is vague and misleading due to the 'vertically' error, and it does not mention when not to use it or what distinguishes it from related tools like 'move-horizontally-by-mining' or 'dig-directly-down'.

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