move_node

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'move (reparent)', which implies a structural change, but doesn't clarify side effects like whether children move with the node, if undo is supported, or if permission or scene locking is required. This is under-disclosed for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices essential details for brevity. It has no structure (no sections for behavior or parameters) and provides only the bare minimum. While not verbose, it is under-specified, earning a middle score.

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 complexity of reparenting a node (which can affect transforms, signals, and child hierarchies) and the absence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to mention what happens to the node's children, whether the operation is reversible, or if any constraints apply (e.g., cyclic parent relationships). The description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the full impact.

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?

The input schema describes 4 required parameters, with only nodePath and newParentPath having descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it doesn't compensate for the missing schema descriptions on projectPath and scenePath (which remain unclear). It adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Move (reparent)' and the resource 'node in a scene', which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_node, remove_node, duplicate_node, or rename_node. It leaves no doubt about the tool's core function.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't note that moving a node may affect child positions or that the new parent must exist in the same scene. The usage context is purely implied.

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