mc_use

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'For N ticks' does convey that the key is held rather than tapped, which is useful, but nothing is said about whether the call blocks, what in-game effect follows (place/consume/interact), or whether it is a safe, non-destructive input primitive.

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 ten-word sentence with the action and its duration parameter front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter input primitive with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally complete. It still leaves the agent guessing about interaction target, blocking behavior, and effect, which matter for sequencing this against mc_look or mc_click.

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 coverage is 100% and the ticks parameter already documents its default and meaning ('Ticks to hold (default 1)'). The description's phrase 'for N ticks' restates that without adding format, range, or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Press') and a specific resource ('the use (right-click) key') with a duration qualifier, so an agent can tell it apart from mc_key (arbitrary keys), mc_click (cursor clicks), and mc_attack. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as mc_click or mc_attack, and no preconditions. The agent must infer from the plain verb that this drives in-game block/entity interaction rather than cursor input, with nothing in the text to confirm or exclude that reading.

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