Parent Nodes

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description does not explain effects like unparenting when parent is null, or how children are affected. It relies heavily on the parameter schema for this information.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

While the schema and annotations cover many details, the description is too brief to fully contextualize the tool's behavior, such as unparenting or the preservation of local transformations. The presence of an output schema mitigates some completeness concerns, but the description could be more informative.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters; it merely restates the overall purpose. According to the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema provides full coverage.

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 'reparent' and clearly identifies the resource as nodes in the Maya hierarchy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nodes.create and nodes.delete by focusing on reparenting, which is unique among siblings.

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 such as nodes.create or nodes.rename. The description lacks context for when reparenting is appropriate or how it differs from other node operations.

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