set_anchor

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (mutating but not destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: 'Anchors stay put when parts move' (persistence), exhaust smoke emission verified in-game, and null deletes the anchor (via schema). It omits overwrite/re-set behavior and permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds only relevant clauses. Parentheticals ('meaning not documented', 'verified in game') are a bit loose but each carries information; nothing is padding.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers naming semantics, coordinate space, persistence, and deletion. Missing details like re-setting an existing anchor or name uniqueness are minor gaps rather than blockers.

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 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the player-position convention ('official cars put it on the left, negative X'), the candid 'vital (meaning not documented)' caveat, and a concrete example value '[−4, 9, 2]'. That is genuine added value over the schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('Set a named point of the model') and enumerates what anchors represent (driver position, exhaust, lights), so the agent understands the domain. It never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. move_part, add_part), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 explains the semantics of the key names (player, vital, exhaust) which implies use for vehicle rigging, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like move_part or add_part. Usage is inferred, not stated.

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