move_lattice_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that points are moved/scaled to deform bound objects, offset is in world units, scale is about the lattice centre and limited to 0.01–100, reset restores original positions, and the return value reports moved and total point counts.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently structured into Args and Returns. The Returns line is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but the overall text is well organized and every other sentence earns its place.

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 complex 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, selection modes, scaling behavior, reset behavior, and return summary. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 fully. Its Args section explains all seven parameters with meaning beyond the schema: world-unit offset, per-axis scaling range, side selection via axis/sign, index ordering (u fastest, then v, then w), and reset semantics (others ignored).

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?

States a specific verb (move or scale), resource (lattice points), and effect (deform everything the lattice is bound to). This is clearly distinct from sibling operations like create_lattice or mesh edits, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explains how points are selected (by side via axis/sign, by index, or all if neither) and that reset ignores other arguments. It implies the correct usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no direct sibling duplicates this lattice-point manipulation.

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