Shift a named part in a Buildup project by a voxel offset [dx, dy, dz]. Wheels move with their axles, while anchors remain fixed.
Move a part (a wheel's axle moves with it; anchors stay where they are).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part | Yes | Part name, for example 'body' or 'wheel_fl'. | |
| offset | Yes | Shift [dx, dy, dz] in voxels. | |
| project | Yes | Project name, for example 'red_pickup'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds operation-specific side-effect information beyond annotations: a wheel's axle moves with it, while anchors stay in place. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, so it is useful but not exhaustive.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The most important information, the move action, comes first, and the parenthetical adds a compact behavioral note.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one key side effect. It remains incomplete on when to choose this tool over siblings and on reversibility, leaving clear gaps for an agent.
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 100%, with project, part, and offset each documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a part'), and the parenthetical clarifies operation scope for wheels and anchors. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as mirror_part or add_part, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites stated. The description only declares what the operation does, leaving the agent to infer selection context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.