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 burden. It discloses the operation (set origin) and the type enum, but doesn't mention whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires selection, or what the output/return value is. The behavior is only partially 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The type list is useful but could be considered redundant with the schema default; still, it earns its place by clarifying the enum values.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what 'origin point' means in practice, how the type affects the result, or what the tool returns. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 explains the 'type' parameter by listing its possible values, but it does not explain the 'name' parameter (which object) or the meaning of the listed types beyond their names. The description adds some value for 'type' but leaves 'name' undocumented.

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 and resource ('Set an object's origin point') and lists the supported origin types, which distinguishes it from generic transform tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource and type list make the purpose clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_transform or apply_transform. The description implies it is for origin manipulation, but it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., object must exist) or when not to use it.

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