blender_object_set_origin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the operation itself. It does not disclose that changing an origin shifts transform data and can affect children, constraints, or animation, and it leaves the cursor workflow ambiguous — whether the tool sets the cursor itself or expects the caller to pre-position it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical adds real clarifying value without adding length. Every word earns its place and nothing from the schema is redundantly repeated.

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?

The tool has a behavioral enum, an optional origin_type whose default is undocumented in both the description and the schema, and a conditional cursor_location parameter. A one-sentence description omits the default origin_type behavior, side effects on transforms/children, and the cursor precondition. With no annotations and no output schema, this leaves agents to guess on the very points that determine correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the enum values (GEOMETRY_CENTER, ORIGIN_CURSOR, ORIGIN_CENTER_OF_MASS, ORIGIN_CENTER_OF_VOLUME) are largely self-explanatory. The description contributes only the 'pivot point' gloss and does not clarify the ambiguous cursor_location semantics ('Set 3D cursor here first') or the default behavior when origin_type is omitted.

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 pair ('Set the origin of an object') plus an in-line clarification of the key term via the parenthetical '(pivot point)'. It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling, especially adjacent ones like blender_object_transform and blender_object_apply_transforms, none of which claim origin-setting.

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?

Usage must be inferred: an agent can reasonably deduce this is the tool to call when an object's origin/pivot point needs repositioning. However, the description names no alternatives, gives no when-not-to-use conditions, and does not explicitly disambiguate against transform-related siblings, leaving the routing entirely implicit.

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