object_set_parent

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — omitting `parent` detaches to the scene root — but omits key reparenting semantics such as whether world transform is preserved or whether cycles are rejected.

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?

One short sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the default-case nuance immediately after; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation semantics of `parent` are covered. However, with `ref` undocumented and no statement about transform preservation or cycle handling, an agent still lacks information needed to call this correctly in edge cases.

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 carry the burden. It explains `parent` well, including the null default and its root-detach consequence, but says nothing about `ref`, leaving the agent to guess whether it is an object id, name, or path despite the integer|string union.

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 and resource ('Re-parent an object') plus the scope effect of the default case ('moves to the scene root'). It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like object_group or object_set_transform, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: use it to change hierarchy, omit `parent` to detach to root. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over object_group or how it interacts with selection-based tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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