cocos_move_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'sibling_index=-1 appends as last child,' which adds some context about default behavior, but fails to describe other critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or the impact on existing node hierarchies. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence provides essential information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, full parameter semantics, and usage context. Although an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains 'sibling_index=-1 appends as last child,' adding meaning beyond the schema for one parameter. However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of 'scene_path,' 'node_id,' or 'new_parent_id,' leaving three parameters with no additional context. This partial compensation results in a baseline score.

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 'Re-parent a node' clearly states the verb ('Re-parent') and resource ('a node'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_duplicate_node' or 'cocos_delete_node' which also manipulate nodes, so it's not fully distinctive.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to re-parent versus creating a new node or using other node manipulation tools. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this operation is appropriate.

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