clear_parent

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses the effect of keep_transform ('optionally keeping its world transform'), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects like whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the object's transform if keep_transform is false, or any other implications of the mutation. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the optional behavior. It is concise with no wasted words, making it efficient for an agent to process.

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 simple operation with two parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential behavior (clearing and optional transform). It does not explicitly mention return values or potential errors, but these are likely covered by the output schema and are not critical for this straightforward action. The main gap is the lack of guidance on differentiating from set_parent.

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. It explains the effect of keep_transform but does not describe the 'name' parameter, which is likely the object name. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other undocumented, resulting in a partial but not complete explanation of the parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Clear the parent of an object.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the optional transform behavior adds nuance. It implicitly differentiates from set_parent by focusing on removal, so an agent can easily understand the purpose.

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 implies its usage (it's a clearing action) but provides no explicit guidance about when to use it versus the sibling set_parent, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The use case is fairly evident from the action itself, but the lack of explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use reduces the score.

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