move_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the operation creates a parametric timeline feature, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, required coordinate systems, or behavior when the body is constrained or referenced elsewhere.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important gaps. It explains the main transform parameters but not rotation origin, which is critical for rotation semantics, nor any expected result or failure modes. A richer description is needed for an agent to use this correctly in complex 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 compensate. It adds meaning for translation_mm (mm) and rotation (axis + angle_deg), including the 'and/or' relationship. But it omits meaning for rotation_origin_mm and name, and does not explain array shapes or units for origin, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 moves a body via a parametric Move feature in the timeline. This distinguishes it from sibling move_component by specifying 'body' and 'parametric in the timeline'.

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 use for moving bodies with translation and/or rotation, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like move_component or state when not to use this tool. There is no when/when-not guidance, only an implied usage context.

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