deconstruct

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key traits: it returns resources to inventory, uses vanilla mining time, targets only the force's own buildings, and enforces max 10 tiles/50 buildings. It doesn't explicitly mention that it returns a job id or can block on wait_s, but the schema's wait_s description covers that behavior.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys target, behavior, mode selection, and limits with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 definition is complete enough for selecting and starting a deconstruction job: it covers what is affected, where, how many, and the time model. Return-value details are not needed in the description because an output schema exists and the wait_s parameter already explains the job-id behavior.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics by defining the relationship between x/y and area_radius: nearest single building vs. all within radius. It also adds the practical limits of 10 tiles and 50 buildings that are not fully captured by the bare range constraints in the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb-object pair: 'Mine ... buildings back into your inventory', which clearly identifies the action and target. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like mine (natural resource extraction) and build_blueprint/place_entity by limiting to 'your force's own buildings' and noting 'vanilla mining time'.

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 gives clear operational contexts: use coordinates to target the nearest building, or area_radius to deconstruct all buildings in an area. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the 'own buildings' restriction effectively separates it from mining raw resources.

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