set_origin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: geometry and children do not move, and shared mesh data becomes a private copy. It does not cover return values, undo behavior, or error cases, but the key side effect is surfaced.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then parameter semantics, then use cases and the copy-on-write caveat. Every sentence adds value 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior, both optional parameters, use cases, and a side effect. It does not address what happens if both `at` and `anchor` are supplied or clarify the required `names` parameter, leaving minor gaps.

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 must compensate. It clearly explains `at` (one world point for all) and `anchor` (fractions of the world box, with concrete examples like (0.5, 0.5, 0) as bottom centre). The `names` parameter is only implied, not explicitly described, which keeps this from a 5.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Move the origin of each object without moving its geometry or its children in the world.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like transform_objects or apply_transforms, which move geometry rather than repivot.

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 concrete usage context ('Use it for pivots: a hinge axis, the base of a prop, the grip of a weapon') and explains the two mutually exclusive parameter strategies. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough to select it correctly.

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