snap_to_grid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic snapping behavior. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., permanent modification of object location) or clarify whether it snaps the object's origin or bounding box. The return value is mentioned, but behavioral details are sparse.

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 concise with a brief summary and structured Args/Returns sections. It uses minimal words without unnecessary fluff, but the Args section could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative.

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 lack of annotations and low schema coverage, the description should provide more comprehensive context. It fails to explain that the tool modifies the object in place, whether it works on selected objects or only by name, or the behavior when grid_size is not specified. The presence of an output schema is noted but not detailed enough.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters, but it merely repeats what the schema already conveys (name and grid_size with default). It adds no extra context like units for grid_size or validation rules.

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 'snap' and the resource 'object's location', making the action explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_location by specifically mentioning grid snapping, which is a unique operation.

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 set_location or manual adjustments. It lacks exclusions or context about prerequisites like object selection.

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