node_reparent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Move' implying mutation, but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., preservation of children, transformation changes), error conditions, or required permissions. It only mentions success/error returns.

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 with a clear structure: a one-line summary, a category label, parameter list with examples, and a return description. Only essential information is included.

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 (4 string params) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the inputs and outputs. It lacks only minor details like error handling specifics or undoability.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description includes a parameter list with example values (e.g., 'root/Player'), which adds practical context beyond the bare schema titles. However, it does not specify constraints like allowed characters or format validation.

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 explicitly states the action ('Move a node to a new parent') and the resource ('in a scene'), with a clear synonym 'reparent'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_add, node_rename, or node_delete.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't differentiate from node_duplicate or node_add for similar operations, nor does it mention prerequisites like the existence of the target parent.

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