Move Entity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing this is a non-read-only and non-destructive mutation. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying that movement is by a displacement vector rather than absolute coordinates or a target point, giving agents useful behavioral context about how the transformation is applied.

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?

A single, compact sentence states the verb, object, and relevant parameters with no filler. The essential concept (relative displacement vector) is 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?

For a simple four-parameter transformation tool with full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It conveys the core behavior, and nothing critical like return value or prerequisites is missing given the structured context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents handle, dx, dy, and dz with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond restating the displacement vector concept, which is already captured in parameter descriptions. It does not clarify units, coordinate system, or sign conventions, but the baseline for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and a clear resource ('an entity') plus the exact displacement vector parameters (dx, dy, dz). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling entity tools like entity_rotate or entity_copy, and there is no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever an entity needs a relative displacement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but among the large sibling list there is no competing move-like tool, so the context is sufficient and no misleading guidance is present.

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