cpu_demolish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly: costs CPU and consumes materials with no refund, preserves deposits and warehouse balances, locks the plot during a cooldown, and details mining/craft/hub edge cases. It even points to cpu_get_game_config for exact demolishCost figures.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence earns its place covering costs, restrictions, preserved state, and cooldown. The length is fully justified by the number of behavioral constraints a caller must know before invoking a destructive operation.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers every major concern: authentication prerequisite, exact cost sources, failure-condition edge cases, post-demolition cooldown, and where to verify it (cpu_get_cell/cpu_get_attention). The only omission is the return payload, which is minor for a side-effect-driven action.

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% for the single tokenId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by defining which tokenIds are valid targets — cells with no active mining/craft processes, hubs in a non-busy state — and by noting the rebuild cooldown that follows on the same cell.

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 first sentence states a specific action — 'Remove the building from a Land cell you own' — with a clear outcome ('clearing it for a different building'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from building-related siblings like cpu_build and cpu_upgrade.

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 gives strong when-to-use context ('clearing it for a different building') and a hard prerequisite ('call cpu_authenticate first'). It enumerates explicit exclusion conditions — no active mining or craft process, hub not mid-route or anchoring open trade lots — but never names or contrasts an alternative tool for comparison.

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