move_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the move silently reverts if the ground-to-parent flag is set, that the flag gets broken, and that the agent should verify the 'moved' and 'after_translation_mm' fields because results may be overridden.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed directly by the most critical caveats. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: expected inputs, default behavior, silent failure mode, and response fields to check. This is sufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool and understand the likely outcome.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds units for translation (mm), describes rotation as axis plus angle in degrees, and specifies the default for rotation_origin_mm. However, it does not explain what 'name' refers to or the exact expected array shapes for translation and axis vectors.

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 an occurrence via translation and/or rotation with units, which is specific and actionable. The word 'occurrence' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'move_body', and the rotation/translation details further define its scope.

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 provides important usage context, including the ground-to-parent flag interaction and the warning that a joint solver can override the requested move. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'move_body' or 'create_joint' or specify when this tool should be preferred over them.

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