attach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains that children move with `part`, that `with_children=false` changes only how the bounding boxes are measured, and that `offset` is in metres. It also documents the return payload (`boxes_used`, `moved_by`) and clarifies that top-level min/max refer to `part` alone.

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 front-loaded with the core move semantics, then layers in anchor details, child behavior, return values, and alternatives. Despite covering a complex operation, every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, parameter semantics, side effects, return values, limitations, and sibling alternatives. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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, and it does: it defines anchors as fractions 0..1 per axis with examples, explains the default top placement, specifies that `offset` is in metres, and clarifies the nuanced behavior of `with_children`. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema parameter names and defaults.

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 precise verb and resource: moving `part` so a point of its world bounding box lands on a point of `to`'s bounding box. It also distinguishes this tool from nearby siblings by naming `move_to_contact`, `place_on`, and `transform_objects` as alternatives for cases this tool does not handle.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: boxes do not follow round or slanted surfaces, so use `move_to_contact` to close the real gap, `place_on` to drop onto uneven ground, or `transform_objects` for a known offset. The default placement behavior is also stated, so an agent can choose the right tool without inference.

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