object-origin_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It simply says 'Set an object's origin' without mentioning side effects (e.g., moving the object's geometry, affecting transforms) or any irreversible changes. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and the only sentence earns its place, effectively stating the core operation without tangents.

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?

This tool has 3 parameters, two enums, no output schema, and no annotations, indicating moderate complexity. The description is too sparse: it fails to explain the modes of origin setting, the center options, or the consequences of the operation, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 for parameter meaning. It does not mention any parameters, the 'type' enum options, the 'center' mode, or the required 'object' name. The description adds no value to understanding what these parameters do.

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') and target ('an object's origin'), which is a specific, meaningful operation. It distinguishes from sibling object tools by focusing on 'origin', a concept not present in other sibling names, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools like object-transform_set.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the action without indicating prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many object-related siblings, some context about when changing an origin is appropriate would be expected.

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