snap_and_parent

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add the behavioral trait of matching a '27-point anchor' and performing a parent operation, which the annotations do not convey. However, it lacks detail on side effects, such as whether the object's transform is permanently changed or how the anchor matching behaves on failure.

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 sentence that conveys the operation directly without any filler words. It is concise and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 tool that performs snapping and parenting with destructive annotations and anchor matching, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the return value (though an output schema exists), prerequisites such as object selection, or the behavior of the anchor system. The presence of an output schema helps, but the overall context for a complex, destructive operation is 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the two main parameters 'obj_move' and 'obj_target' implicitly through the sentence, but does not explain the 'anchor_move' and 'anchor_target' parameters at all. The names themselves are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in clarifying acceptable anchor values or how they are used.

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 tool's function: it snaps an object to a target using an anchor system, then parents it. The verb 'snap' and 'parent' plus the resource objects are specific. However, the phrase 'anchor 27-titik' is vague and does not clarify what the anchors are or how they differ from the sibling tool snap_to_anchor, limiting differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snap_to_anchor or align_objects. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This is a significant gap given the sibling tools.

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