cpu_demolish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly. It discloses costs (burns $CPU, consumes build materials with no refund), preservation of deposits/warehouse balances, and post-effects (plot locked until demolish cooldown ends). It also surfaces edge cases like mining extractors and hub restrictions.

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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place: core purpose, prerequisites, cost mechanics, restrictions, and post-demolition behavior. The description is front-loaded with the main action and then expands into necessary caveats without fluff.

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?

For a destructive action with many edge cases, the description covers prerequisites, exact cost reference, restrictions, and post-demolition behavior. It lacks an explicit return-value statement, but with no output schema and side effects fully documented, this is acceptably complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single tokenId parameter, describing it as a cell you own whose building to remove. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond restating the schema content, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Remove the building from a Land cell you own, clearing it for a different building.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like cpu_build or cpu_craft by focusing on demolition.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('call cpu_authenticate first') and provides detailed when-not conditions: no active mining or craft process, hub cannot be mid-route or anchoring open trade lots. It also points to specific tools (cpu_get_game_config, cpu_get_cell, cpu_get_attention) for cost and cooldown details, giving clear operational guidance.

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