move_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-obvious side effect that door/window blocks move as one but the wall hole stays put, and it states the mm units. It does not cover failure modes or coordinate-system details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operational core and followed by the single important caveat. No filler or redundant text.

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 simple three-parameter translation tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, units, and the main special-case behavior. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance against sibling operations, but nothing needed to execute a basic move is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that dx/dy are mm displacements and implies names identifies the objects to move, but it does not explicitly describe the array semantics or the coordinate reference. This is partial compensation.

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 states a clear verb ('Move'), resource ('objects'), and the exact displacement convention ('by (dx, dy) mm'). It doesn't explicitly call out sibling tools like rotate_object or copy_object, so it misses the top-tier differentiation but is unambiguous on its own.

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 guidance on when to use move_object versus its alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisite conditions. The door/window note is a behavior caveat, not a usage decision rule.

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