mc_deop

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the effect but does not mention permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects, or if it applies only to online players. For a mutation tool, this is a minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks context about when to use it, prerequisites, or behavior beyond the basic effect. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps about permissions and relationship to sibling tools.

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?

The schema provides a description for the single 'player' parameter that fully explains its meaning ('The player name to remove operator status'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Remove operator status from a player'. The verb 'remove' and resource 'operator status' make the action explicit, and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like mc_op (which adds operator status) and whitelist tools.

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 (when you need to deop a player) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like mc_execute_as_op or mc_op. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it relies on name and context.

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