cpu_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses costs ($CPU, possibly refined resources), auto-approval of spend, on-chain placement, waiting for confirmation, build time delay, single-building-per-cell rule, safe no-op on re-run, and demolition cooldown. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema conveys.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering prerequisites, catalog, costs, timing, post-actions, and constraints. It is longer than typical but appropriate for a complex blockchain interaction; structure flows logically from placement to follow-up.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: authentication, building type selection, costs, waiting, activation, replacement, cooldown, and inspection. It even mentions the no-op case. No obvious gaps remain for an agent to invoke this tool successfully.

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 100% for both tokenId and buildingType, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by categorizing buildingType (extractor, crafter, hub) and linking it to the game config and subsequent actions, which goes beyond the schema's enum list. It does not add new syntax for tokenId but reinforces the 'own' requirement.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Place a building on a revealed Land cell you own', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cpu_demolish and cpu_start_mining. It also enumerates building categories (extractor, crafter, hub), making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 provides explicit context: requires a session (cpu_authenticate first), references the catalog (cpu_get_game_config) for choosing buildingType, and explains follow-up actions (cpu_start_mining for extractors, cpu_craft for crafters). It also warns about the need to demolish before switching buildings and the cooldown after demolition, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.

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