wb_move

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the tool is non-mutating by default and only writes when write=true is passed. That said, it omits whether x/y/z are relative deltas or absolute coordinates, what coordinate space applies, and whether a dry-run produces any diagnostic output.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the safety-relevant default. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness crosses into under-specification that the remaining sentences never recover.

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?

A six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more than fourteen words. Missing are the meaning of the offset parameters, the role of file versus path, and any description of what the caller gets back from a dry-run.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning. It clarifies only the write flag's effect; x, y, z, file, and path are left completely unexplained, including whether file/path identify the target versus the transform target.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Translate an object/group"), so the agent knows this is a transform/offset operation rather than a create or delete. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as wb_live_move, wb_rotate, or wb_scale, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 only usage-relevant signal is the dry-run default gated by write=true. There is no guidance on when to pick this over wb_live_move or wb_rotate/wb_scale, no preconditions about loading a file, and no note on what a dry-run returns.

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