teleport_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., teleport confirmation, whether the action is instant or requires server restart), error cases (e.g., invalid player or invalid coordinates), or any impact on gameplay. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool that mutates server state.

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 a single, concise sentence that quickly conveys the core action. No filler or redundant content. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter teleport command used in server management, the description is adequate in that it specifies the action and the two destination modes. However, it omits any mention of error handling, permission requirements, or behavioral side effects, which could leave an agent uncertain about edge cases. Given the absence of an output schemaThis is a relatively common pattern for such commands, so a 3 reflects the overall sufficiency but lack of depth.

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 describes 'destination' with 'Target player name, or x y z coordinates', and the description reinforces this by saying 'to another player or to coordinates'. However, the 'player' parameter has no description in the schemaˌ and the description does not clarify it further. The description adds slight value for 'destination' but leaves 'player' ambiguous. With 50% schema coverage, a baseline 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 description clearly states the action ('Teleport') and the resource ('a player'), and specifies two destination types ('another player' or 'coordinates'). It's specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like server_start or give_item, even without naming alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the tool's purpose is obvious from the name, the description doesn't mention any preconditions (e.g., player online, permission requirements) or suggest alternatives for related operations.

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