parent

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 what keep_world does to the child's position, which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about whether transforms are inherited, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to the child's existing parent.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the optional flag explained second. Efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It never explains the object-reference format or the reparenting side effects an agent needs to call it safely.

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% for all three parameters. The description clarifies keep_world's semantics, but both required parameters (child and to) are left as bare names with no indication of whether they are object references, names, or IDs.

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 conveys a parenting relationship ('make child follow to'), giving a verb and two resources. But 'follow' is a non-standard metaphor for what is presumably a parent/reparent operation, and it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like attach, bind, or combine.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the plausible alternatives (attach, bind, transfer_weights) among the sibling tools. The agent is left to infer the context entirely.

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