attach

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

Annotations (destructiveHint=true) already flag that this mutates the scene, and the description adds real context beyond that: the default places part on top, child boxes are included, with_children=false measures objects alone while children still move, and it names the return fields (`boxes_used`, `moved_by`). It stops short of stating explicitly that the part's existing placement is overwritten, so not a full 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each following sentence adds constraints, anchor format, or return shape rather than filler. It is dense and slightly blocky but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return payload (`boxes_used` with objects/min/max/size, `moved_by`, top-level min/max being of `part` alone). Combined with the defaults, anchor semantics, and surface limitations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: anchors are explained as fractions 0..1 per axis with concrete examples ('(0.5,0.5,0)' bottom centre, '(0.5,0.5,1)' top centre), `offset` is stated to be in metres, and `with_children` semantics are spelled out. Every non-obvious parameter is decoded.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with the exact mechanism: 'move `part` (with its children) so an anchor of its world box lands on an anchor of the box of `to`'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming move_to_contact, place_on, and transform_objects as the routes for surface-aware or known-offset moves.

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?

Explicitly covers when NOT to use it and why: 'Surfaces are not looked at', 'Boxes do not follow round or slanted surfaces', and directs the agent to move_to_contact for real gaps, place_on for uneven ground, and transform_objects for a known offset. Alternative selection is fully resolved.

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