ground

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it will not look at any other object (so overlaps are possible), and empty names means all top-level objects are affected. It does not state return format, but no output schema exists to lean on.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the scoping caveat and the routing alternative. Every clause earns its place 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?

For a 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, both parameters, default scope, and the sibling alternative, while annotations carry the destructive profile. Slightly short of complete because it doesn't mention what happens to objects with existing transforms beyond the lowest-point alignment.

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 carry the load, and it does: 'z' is defined as the height the lowest point sits at, and 'names' semantics (all top-level objects when empty) are spelled out. Only minor gaps remain, e.g. whether z accepts negative values or units.

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: it moves objects so their lowest point sits at a given height z, i.e. sets a level floor. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling place_on, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative ('use place_on when the floor is another object or not level') and the condition that selects it. It also implies the default scope (all top-level objects when names is empty), leaving nothing to inference about when to reach for this tool.

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