move_object

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that other properties are untouched and that omitting position/rotation preserves current values. It also explains accepted rotation formats. It does not mention side effects like recompute or error behavior if the object is not found, but the provided details go beyond the bare minimum.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args block. Every line adds value, with no redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the core parameters and behavior effectively, and the output schema exists so return values are not needed. However, the 'document' parameter is unexplained, and there is no guidance on when to prefer this over edit_object. These minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'name' as object Name or Label, gives position units (mm) and array shape, and details three rotation formats (degrees about Z, axis-angle, Euler). This compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions. However, the 'document' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reposition an object without touching its other properties.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_object (general editing) and delete_object. The scope of action (position/rotation only, preserving other properties) is precise.

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 clearly implies the intended use: reposition an object while preserving all other properties. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., edit_object) or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to select this tool.

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