Change Space

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by explaining the viewport transformation rationale, per-entity refusal conditions, the freeze_dimensions exception, and the important 'moved and flagged, not refused' fallback for entities outside the viewport or sheet. This gives the agent a realistic picture of side effects and failure modes.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core purpose, the transformation rationale, the refusal conditions, and the flagging behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important information and uses a concrete example to clarify the scaling behavior without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and non-trivial edge cases, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how scaling works, which entity types are refused, when the whole operation is refused, and how out-of-bounds results are handled. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: it explains the role of the viewport as the mapping source and clarifies what freeze_dimensions does in the context of dimension refusals. This helps the agent reason about parameter relationships and edge cases.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous statement: 'move entities across spaces, rescaled by the viewport.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity_move or entity_scale, since it explains the cross-space, viewport-driven transformation.

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 use case is strongly implied by the description, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as entity_move or viewport_set_scale. The refusal list tells agents when the tool cannot be used, but it does not directly mention alternative tools or conditions that would route an agent elsewhere.

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