parent

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 usefully adds the keep_world semantics (world position preserved versus snapping to the parent), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not say what happens to any existing parent relationship or whether the child's transform is rewritten.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the one modifier that matters. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true efficiency.

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 hierarchy-mutating tool flagged destructive with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description covers the core mechanic but leaves out error conditions, re-parenting behavior, and whether the change is reversible. Adequate but with clear gaps for a destructive operation.

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. It does define all three parameters in plain terms (child, to, and keep_world), which is more than the schema offers, but it omits the default value of keep_world and gives no format hints for the string identifiers.

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 concrete operation on two named resources: it makes `child` follow `to`, which is the parenting relationship, and it names the key modifier. However, it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like `attach`, `bind`, or `combine`, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 alternatives such as `attach` or `bind`. The agent is given the mechanics but not the conditions under which parenting is the correct choice over a sibling tool.

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