set_origin

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the side effect that 'Mesh data shared with other objects becomes a private copy' and by clarifying that geometry and children are not moved. Missing any note on reversibility or permission requirements, but the important mutation consequence 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?

Front-loads the core behavior, then the parameter contract, then the mesh-copy side effect. Dense but every clause earns its place; no padding or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is the sole source of parameter and behavior information, and it covers both params plus the shared-mesh side effect. It does not address whether the change is undoable or how multi-object selection interacts across differing origins, which is a minor residual gap for a destructive tool.

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 largely does: it defines `at` as one world point for all and `anchor` as box fractions without children, with worked examples ((0.5, 0.5, 0) is bottom centre). Only `names` is left implicit, which is self-evident from the plural and required status.

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 ('Move the origin of each object') plus the critical scope qualifier ('without moving its geometry or its children in the world'). An agent can distinguish this from transform_objects or move_to_contact without opening a 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?

Gives concrete use-case framing: 'Use it for pivots: a hinge axis, the base of a prop, the grip of a weapon.' That tells the agent when the tool is the right choice, but names no alternative or when-not-to-use condition.

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