set_goal_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the bridge lacks GoalBlock support so the goal is applied via goto. It says nothing about whether an existing goal is replaced, permissions, or completion semantics (output schema covers the return value).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the caveat trails. Nothing redundant.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a navigation-mutation tool with no annotations and three undocumented required parameters, the description should do more to cover prerequisites, goal-replacement behavior, and sibling routing.

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%: x, y, and z are bare integers with no titles beyond single letters. The description never clarifies whether these are absolute world coordinates, chunk-relative, or target block types, so the agent must guess the meaning of all three required parameters.

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?

States a specific action (apply a block-level navigation goal) and the resource (block coordinates). It even notes the implementation path (goto command, no GoalBlock support), but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as goal_coordinates, goto_block_type, or clear_goal.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of the clearly related siblings (goal_coordinates, goto_block_type, thisway, path, clear_goal). The mention of the goto command is an internal implementation detail, not a when-to-use rule for the agent.

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