build_schematic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not meet it. "Build" implies a world mutation, but nothing is said about whether existing blocks are overwritten, what permissions or uploaded assets are required, or whether the operation can be undone.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the action stated first, but the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency. It is under-specified rather than tight.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 0% parameter documentation, and a near-identical sibling the description is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent what the call actually needs or produces.

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 four parameters, and the description never names the `name` parameter at all. Worse, it calls the origin coordinates "optional" while the schema marks x, y, and z as required, so the description actively misleads on requiredness rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

"Build a schematic" gives a verb and a resource, so the basic action is legible, but it is nearly a restatement of the tool name and does nothing to separate it from the sibling build_open_schematic or from start_schematic_upload. An agent cannot tell which of these build paths applies without opening schemas.

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 only usage-adjacent information is "Optionally specify origin coordinates," which is parameter talk, not guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus build_open_schematic, no prerequisite (e.g., a schematic must already be uploaded), and no exclusions.

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