setblock

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'optional mode' but does not explain what the modes (replace, destroy, keep) do, nor does it describe side effects like breaking existing blocks or permission requirements. The description is surface-level and does not reveal behavior beyond the literal action.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and each phrase is relevant. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it is efficiently structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the burden of contextual completeness. It lacks important context about when to use setblock versus fill or clone_area, and it does not explain mode semantics. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and fit.

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 descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the mode enum and its default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond saying 'with optional mode,' which is already implied by the schema. As the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 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 action ('Place') and the resource ('a block') at a specific position, making the core purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like fill or clone_area, which also manipulate blocks, so it lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that fill is for areas or that this is for single-block placement, nor does it state any prerequisites or constraints. The absence of usage context makes it difficult for an agent to know when to select this tool.

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