blender_object_translate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation moves an object and that 'location' means absolute positioning while 'offset' means relative movement. However, it does not mention coordinate space, array length, conflict behavior if both parameters are supplied, or what happens if neither is provided.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and the key parameter distinction are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return values do not need description. However, the description leaves gaps around coordinate system, array dimensions, and behavior when both or neither 'location' and 'offset' are supplied. These are relevant for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 must compensate. It does add meaning by defining 'location' as absolute positioning and 'offset' as relative movement, which goes beyond the bare parameter names. However, it does not specify the expected coordinate array format, length, or the exclusivity implications clearly enough for fully precise invocation.

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 and resource ('Move an object') and immediately clarifies the two modes of operation: absolute positioning via 'location' and relative movement via 'offset'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling transform tools like rotate and scale.

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 clear usage context by explaining when to use 'location' versus 'offset', which is essential for correct invocation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like rotate or scale, but 'move' makes the tool's role obvious among the transform siblings.

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