Renforge Position Element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tag keeps its current attributes, that it returns new logical bounds, and the crucial int-vs-float coordinate rule. However, it never states the key precondition (a running game with the tag shown) or what happens on failure, so for a mutation-style runtime tool this 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the mechanics and the int/float rule. Each sentence carries information; only the final 'write into the .rpy' sentence edges toward workflow advice rather than tool semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description does mention logical bounds anyway. Given 13 parameters and a runtime-mutation behavior, the missing preconditions (game must be launched, tag must be shown) and the undocumented anchor/offset/zoom parameters leave the definition thin.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of xpos/ypos (integer = pixels, float = fraction) and the 'at least one placement field' rule, which is the highest-value guidance. But xalign, yalign, xanchor, yanchor, xoffset, yoffset, zoom, rotate, and layer are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (reposition), resource (a shown image tag), and effect (returns its new logical bounds), and the word 'live' scopes it to runtime manipulation. This distinguishes it cleanly from read-only siblings like renforge_get_ui_element_bounds or renforge_get_displayable_bounds.

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?

It gives real usage context: 'Use this to converge on coordinates interactively, then write the final values into the .rpy script', plus the constraint 'Provide at least one placement field'. It does not name a specific alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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