place_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the placement mechanism (world bounding boxes) and the intended outcome (no floating cups or sunken legs), but is silent on failure behavior (missing target, unrenderable geometry), reversibility, or any side effects beyond the object itself.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the capability statement is front-loaded and the example immediately follows. Zero filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core concept and one example, but leaves the agent guessing about error cases, which parameters combine meaningfully, and what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents gap, align, offset, and relation. The example adds a light gloss on align='keep' and relation='on_top' but no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema fields already carry, so baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a concrete verb ('snap') and resource ('object against another') with the mechanism ('exact world bounding boxes'). It is distinguishable from generic siblings like transform_object, but never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary further.

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 worked example place_object('Lamp', 'on_top', 'Desk', align='keep') implies how to invoke it, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance (e.g. place_object vs transform_object vs check_contacts). Usage is demonstrated rather than explained.

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