Move native linked instances by a world-space millimeter delta without altering source geometry, so you can reposition linked CAD parts independently.
Move current native linked instances by a world-space millimeter delta without changing their source geometry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| deltaMm | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the delta is world-space in millimeters and source geometry is left untouched (only instances move), which materially scopes the mutation. It says nothing about the revision/concurrency requirement or what happens if the revision is stale, so it is useful but not rich.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core action and the two key qualifiers (world-space mm delta, source geometry untouched) front-loaded. No filler.
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?
There is no output schema and the annotations cover the mutation safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a 4-parameter mutating tool with zero schema coverage, it omits revision semantics and the meaning of intent, leaving an agent without enough to call it confidently in all 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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only deltaMm (world-space, millimeter units); ids, revision, and intent are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The unexplained revision parameter is the most significant gap for correct invocation.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Move current native linked instances') and scopes it ('world-space millimeter delta', 'without changing their source geometry'), which distinguishes it from plasticity_move, plasticity_move_reference_meshes, and the rotate/scale instance siblings by implication. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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 only implied by the phrase 'current native linked instances' — an agent can infer that instances must exist and that source geometry is preserved, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to plasticity_rotate_instances / plasticity_scale_instances for the adjacent transform operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.