snap_to_anchor

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no extra context about side effects, reversibility, or what 'move' entails. It fails to explain whether the object's transform, origin, or other properties are affected, and does not clarify the significance of the 27 anchors.

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 in Indonesian, making it concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but its brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical details, which is a minor penalty.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no schema description coverage, yet the description only covers the general concept. It lacks essential context about anchor naming conventions, expected usage patterns, and prerequisites. Although an output schema exists, the description does not sufficiently prepare the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not. The parameters obj_move, obj_target, anchor_move, and anchor_target are not explained, and the default anchor values (A_CENTER_CENTER_CENTER) are left undefined, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.

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 action (move object) and the resource (object) with a specific goal (match one of 27 anchors to another object's anchor). It distinguishes from siblings like snap_and_parent by focusing only on moving, not parenting, though the reference to '27 anchor' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 such as align_objects or snap_and_parent. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action verb.

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