unity_gameobject_reparent

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies mutation but does not state side effects (e.g., impact on child objects, undo support, or performance). The worldPositionStays parameter hints at positional behavior, but overall transparency is moderate.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized, though could include a brief usage note.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the basic operation but lacks return value info, error scenarios, or behavior when path/instanceId is invalid. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so description's role is lighter. However, the description adds value by explaining worldPositionStays and port routing, which clarifies intent beyond parameter names. The port parameter's usage instruction ('ALWAYS include') is a helpful addition.

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 'Move a GameObject under a new parent in the hierarchy' clearly states the action (move), the resource (GameObject), and the target (new parent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like unity_gameobject_delete or unity_gameobject_set_transform, though could be more specific about hierarchy context.

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 does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like unity_gameobject_info or unity_gameobject_create. It also lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., GameObject must exist) or when not to use it.

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