emparentar_objeto

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that parenting renumbers sibling paths ('emparentar renumera las rutas de los hermanos'), a significant side effect. However, it does not mention potential permissions, error conditions, or what happens to the object's pose beyond the parameter explanation.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses two short paragraphs, clearly separates parameter explanations from the warning. The warning is slightly verbose but necessary. Overall efficient.

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 an output schema (not provided) and is a mutation with side effects. The description covers the essential behavior, parameter meanings, and a critical caution about path renumbering. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly, though it could include more about return values or failure modes.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains 'padre' and 'mantener_pose' in detail, but does not explicitly define 'objeto', which is required. While it can be inferred from context, the lack of explicit clarification for the core parameter is a gap.

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 purpose: 'Cuelga un objeto de otro, para que se muevan como un solo cuerpo' (hangs an object from another so they move as one). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fijar_orientacion or obtener_posicion.

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?

Provides a practical usage warning: 'Si vas a emparentar varias piezas seguidas, vuelve a listar los objetos entre una llamada y la siguiente' (re-list objects between consecutive parenting calls). This guides the user on how to handle a common scenario, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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