translate_instance

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says the instance is translated, without explaining whether the translation is relative or absolute, whether it modifies the instance permanently, what coordinate system is used, or what side effects may occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of essential detail, so it is efficient but not fully informative.

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 tool with four parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks crucial information such as vector semantics, units, coordinate frames, and whether this is a relative or absolute move. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The meaning of 'vector', 'timeout', 'model_name', and 'instance_name' is left entirely to inference from the schema structure, which is insufficient.

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 specific verb ('translate') and resource ('instance in the assembly'), making the core action clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling rotate_instance, but the verb is unambiguous enough that an agent can understand the basic operation.

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 this tool instead of alternatives such as rotate_instance or create_instance. No conditions, exclusions, or context are provided to help an agent choose this tool correctly.

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