minecraft_dig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. It states that the tool digs a block, but does not disclose whether the block is removed, whether drops occur, whether a tool is required, whether the action is instant or animated, or what happens if the coordinate is invalid or the block cannot be dug.

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 words. It states the action and target immediately and earns its place without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 has three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains only the core action, leaving out behavioral results, failure modes, or any post-digging effects. An agent could invoke the tool with coordinates, but would not know what to expect afterward or what constraints apply.

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 has 0% description coverage and only defines x, y, and z as numbers. The phrase 'exact coordinate' gives some collective meaning to the parameters, but it does not clarify the coordinate system, units, integer requirements, or valid ranges. With such low schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('Dig'), a concrete resource ('the block'), and the targeting method ('at an exact coordinate'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and reasonably distinct from siblings like minecraft_place or minecraft_attack, though it does not explicitly name any 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as minecraft_collect, minecraft_attack, or minecraft_place. The description implies the basic use case—digging a block at given coordinates—but says nothing about prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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