instance_move

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states that the instance moves. It does not disclose what happens when both position and cframe are passed, whether the move is absolute or relative despite claiming a relative offset, or any studio state requirements. The missing relative-vector-offset parameter makes the behavior description partially inaccurate.

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?

Single sentence with no filler and a front-loaded action. It is compact and readable, though the unsupported relative-offset phrase costs it a perfect mark.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified: no coordinate-space details, no conflict or precedence rules, and no return or error behavior. The claim of a relative Vector offset that the schema cannot express is a material completeness gap. With high schema coverage this remains workable but incomplete.

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 every parameter is already explained; the description adds no extra semantics beyond restating modes. The claimed relative Vector offset has no corresponding parameter, and no guidance is given on precedence between position and cframe. A baseline 3 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?

Clearly specifies a move operation on a 3D Instance and lists Position, CFrame, and relative Vector offset as modes. It is distinct from mutation siblings like instance_reparent or property_set, but it does not name any sibling or explicitly bound the scope. The mention of 'relative Vector offset' is not backed by any parameter, slightly muddying the purpose.

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 for choosing instance_move over siblings such as instance_reparent, instance_create, or property_set. The only conditional advice is the pivot recommendation for Models, which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance. An agent is left to infer when this tool is the right one.

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