cpu_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it costs $CPU, auto-approves spend, sends on-chain, waits for confirmation, building takes time, cell holds one building, re-running on same building is safe no-op, need to demolish to switch, and a cooldown after demolish. It also tells what to do after building.

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 paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value, covering prerequisites, cost, behavior, and next steps. It is efficiently dense yet clear.

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 the complexity of the tool (blockchain interaction, multiple building types, dependencies on other tools), the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisites, cost, behavior, side effects (time delay, cooldown), limitations (one building per cell), and post-build actions. It mentions inspecting the result with cpu_get_cell, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For tokenId, it specifies 'revealed cell you own to build on'. For buildingType, it explains the categories (extractor, crafter, hub) and references cpu_get_game_config for the catalog, linking to sibling tools. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter options and their implications.

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 'Place a building on a revealed Land cell you own' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cpu_demolish, cpu_start_mining, and cpu_craft, which are mentioned as subsequent steps or alternatives.

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 the prerequisite of a session via cpu_authenticate, provides context for when to use the tool (after authentication, on a revealed cell), and explains when not to use it (re-running on same building is a safe no-op; need to demolish first to switch). It also references sibling tools cpu_get_game_config for the catalog and cpu_start_mining/cpu_craft for next steps.

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