ground_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary behavioral effect ('lock its world position') but doesn't mention side effects, reversibility, or whether it affects child components. The description is adequate 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and effect. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks context on how grounding interacts with other operations (e.g., moving, joints) and whether the operation is reversible. The sibling 'unground_component' suggests reversibility, but the description doesn't state it.

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 only one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description doesn't explain what 'name' refers to (occurrence name? component name?) or its format. However, with a single parameter, the tool name and description imply it's the occurrence to ground, so the gap is moderate.

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 action ('Set the ground flag') and the target resource ('an occurrence'), and adds the key effect ('lock its world position'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'unground_component' by implying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 implies when to use it (when you want to lock an occurrence's position) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The sibling 'unground_component' is an obvious counterpart, but the description doesn't mention it or any prerequisites.

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