remove_pushable_rock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a destructive action ('Remove') but doesn't specify if this is permanent, reversible via 'undo', or requires specific permissions. No details on side effects, error conditions, or response format are included, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, direct phrase with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose, adhering perfectly to efficiency standards without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a destructive tool. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or result format, nor does it differentiate from similar removal tools. For a tool that modifies game state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'positions' clearly documented as an array of x,y coordinates to remove. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as explaining coordinate systems or validation rules, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.

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 ('Remove') and the resource ('pushable rocks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_tile' or 'remove_barrier', which would require specifying what makes pushable rocks distinct, but the basic function is unambiguous.

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 like 'remove_tile' or 'clear_region', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for removal. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios from the tool name alone.

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