set_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one important side effect—'walks within reach'—which is useful and not found in the schema. However, it does not mention queueing behavior, cancellation, or failure modes related to unreachable positions.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and target, then adds the movement caveat. Every word 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?

An output schema exists and the input schema documents most parameters, so the description need not repeat those. Still, the recipe parameter is only typed as a string with no guidance on accepted values or how to discover them, and the absence of usage guidance leaves the agent to infer the full context.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides: x and y are described in the schema, and recipe/wait_s/replace are not elaborated in the description.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Set'), resource ('recipe of the crafting machine'), and location ('at x,y'). It is self-explanatory and distinguishable from siblings like craft_items or inspect_entity, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The parenthetical 'walks within reach' hints at movement constraints, but it does not tell the agent when to prefer set_recipe over other crafting-related tools.

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