reparent_node

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

The description does not add much beyond the basic operation. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent, so the mutation nature is known. The phrase 'within the same scene' is a useful constraint, but there is no disclosure of side effects like children moving with the node or impact on references.

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 sentence that perfectly conveys the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 mutation tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It mentions the key constraint of being within the same scene, which is important context. It doesn't explain return values, but that's not required given the simple nature of the operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all four parameters well-documented (e.g., nodePath and newParentPath examples). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Move a node to a different parent') and the scope ('within the same scene'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_node or remove_node. The verb and resource are specific, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to change a node's parent within a scene. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough to guide selection among the many node-related tools.

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