build_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it explains ordered placement, failure reporting/skipping unless stop_on_error, auto_craft hand-crafting missing items, and dry_run validation behavior. These traits go well beyond the schema (which only describes wait_s and replace) and give the agent a clear model of side effects.

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 dense, front-loaded paragraph where the opening phrase states the core purpose and subsequent clauses add behavioral detail. It avoids redundancy and every sentence earns its place, though the phrase 'normal placement rules' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the key execution semantics: step ordering, placement constraints, per-step recipe/insert, failure behavior, auto_craft, and dry_run. It does not explicitly describe coordinate semantics (x/y) or the maximum step count, but those are present in the schema, making the description sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, yet the description compensates for the three Boolean parameters (dry_run, auto_craft, stop_on_error) by explaining their runtime meaning. However, it does not clarify the 'direction' field in BuildStep or the full step object structure, and it adds little beyond the schema for wait_s and replace, so the compensation is only partial.

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 opens with 'Build many entities as ONE job', which clearly states the verb (build), the resource (many entities), and the batch nature that distinguishes it from single-placement siblings like place_entity. It further specifies that each step can optionally set a recipe and insert items, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description implies usage for batch building ('many entities as ONE job') but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives such as place_entity, build_blueprint, or run_plan. It also omits any exclusion criteria or 'when not to use' guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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