place_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: the player may walk to reach build range, and normal placement rules apply. However, it does not state that placement is likely a queued/running job (implied by wait_s and replace), what happens on invalid placement, or whether the item is consumed. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 sentence with a parenthetical clarifier; there is no filler or repeated schema information. The primary action and the most important behavioral caveat are both front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes useful information.

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 sufficient for a basic invocation given the rich input schema and the presence of an output schema. However, it leaves some selection context implicit: it does not mention when to prefer can_place for checking placement, nor does it clarify the job-queue semantics beyond the parameter descriptions. For a 6-parameter action tool, that is a moderate gap.

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 67%, and most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds value by explaining item as 'from your inventory' and implying that x/y may be outside the player's current build range because the tool walks. It does not add meaning for direction, wait_s, or replace, but those are already documented in the input 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Place a building from your inventory'. The parenthetical 'walks within build range; normal placement rules' adds behavioral specificity and helps distinguish this from blueprint-based tools like build_blueprint. It clearly tells an agent what action and target this tool operates on.

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?

It gives clear use context: call this when you want to place a building from inventory, and it explicitly says the tool will walk to be within build range. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives such as can_place for validation or build_blueprint for blueprint placement, so it is not a 5.

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