set_parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a relationship is set, implying a mutation, but does not describe side effects like whether existing parenting is overridden, if objects must be in the same scene, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool that performs a mutation on two parameters, critical information is missing: how to reference the objects, whether existing parenting is replaced or added, and any constraints on object types. The presence of an output schema is irrelevant since the description does not explain the return value. The description is far from adequate for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the parameters have no types or descriptions. The description adds only that the parameters refer to 'two objects', but does not explain how to identify them (by name, ID, etc.) or any constraints on the relationship. The field names 'child' and 'parent' are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 specifies the action 'Set a parent-child relationship' and the resource 'two objects', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this generic tool from specialized parenting tools like parent_mesh_to_armature, which also sets a parent-child relationship but for a specific context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clear_parent or parent_mesh_to_armature. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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