cpu_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the $CPU cost and auto-approval, on-chain placement and confirmation wait, construction delay, one-building-per-cell limit, safe no-op on rebuild, and the post-demolition cooldown lock. This is unusually transparent.

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 dense but every sentence contributes a distinct fact: precondition, catalog, cost/side effect, timing, follow-up actions, idempotency, demolition path, and result inspection. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps the practical constraints tight.

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 mutating, on-chain tool with no output schema, this description covers prerequisites, cost, timing, idempotency, capacity constraints, cooldowns, next steps, and how to verify the result via cpu_get_cell. No critical operational gap remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that an extractor mines, a crafter runs recipes, the hub routes transport/trade, and that tokenId must reference a revealed cell you own. It enhances, rather than merely repeats, the schema.

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: 'Place a building on a revealed Land cell you own.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like cpu_demolish, cpu_get_building, cpu_start_mining, and cpu_craft by explaining what build does and what happens next.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite (cpu_authenticate first), where to find valid options (cpu_get_game_config), what to do after the building finishes (cpu_start_mining or cpu_craft), how to switch buildings (cpu_demolish first), and the cooldown caveat. This is strong routing guidance.

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