move_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the call blocks until the object settles, that smooth=true glides versus false teleporting, and that final position and rotation are returned. It omits permissions, failure behavior, and whether coordinates are world or local space.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blocking behavior, then the smooth toggle, then a practical tip. No filler and every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers blocking semantics, the default behavior toggle, and the return value. The remaining gap is the coordinate space and the meaning of `guid`, which an agent must infer.

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 explains `smooth` meaningfully (glide vs teleport, default true) and clarifies that `rotation` is optional, but adds nothing on `position` format, coordinate frame, or what `guid` identifies — the other half of the parameters remain undocumented.

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?

Specific verb and resource: "Move one object to `position` (optionally `rotation`)". The phrase "one object" implicitly separates it from the sibling move_objects, though it never names that sibling explicitly. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

It offers practical placement advice ("Place pieces slightly above their resting height and let physics settle them"), which is real usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no routing to move_objects for multi-object moves.

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