move_object

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key traits: relative movement, translation axes, and the WORLD/LOCAL coordinate mode. It stops short of covering units, undo/reversibility, behavior for invalid names, or effects on children/constraints.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and the Args list adds parameter semantics without wasted words. No filler or repeated schema defaults, aside from defaults that are already visible in the schema.

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 five-parameter transform tool, the definition covers the operation, all parameters, and coordinate spaces. It could mention constraints or contrast with absolute transform tools, but an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly in most situations.

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?

Even though the input schema has no per-property descriptions, the Args list explains every parameter: name as the object identifier, x/y/z as the translation delta, and space as WORLD or LOCAL. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 line is a specific verb-resource statement: move an object by a delta, with explicit world/local space choice. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like set_object_transform (absolute placement) and rotate_object/scale_object (other transform types).

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 word 'delta' implies this tool is for relative translation, which gives some selection guidance among transform siblings. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use it, e.g., for absolute placement via set_object_transform.

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