snap_to_cursor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral implications. It does not mention that snapping affects the origin point only, which may have downstream effects on transformations, pivots, or parenting. It also doesn't clarify the mutability of the operation (though 'snap' implies modification). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The argument documentation is minimal and wasteful of lines, but the main description is efficient. It could be tighter by integrating the argument descriptions, but overall it is not verbose.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is somewhat adequate, but it lacks critical usage context: there is no mention of how the origin snap affects the object's transform, or whether the tool works on the active object only. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context. It is not complete for a tool that modifies object state.

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%, so the description has the full burden of explaining parameters. The description does explain 'name' and 'cursor_location' in a basic way, but it is incomplete: it doesn't clarify the exact format of cursor_location ([x, y, z] is mentioned) or the default behavior when omitted (the schema says default null, but description doesn't clarify that the 3D cursor's current position is used). It adds some value but not enough to cover the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Snap') and resource ('an object's origin') with a clear target (3D cursor or specified location). This clearly distinguishes it from general move_object and align_object siblings, as it specifically focuses on origin snapping. However, it does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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 basic context ('Snap an object's origin to the 3D cursor or a specific location') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_object, set_object_transform, or align_object. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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