set_pivot_point

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it provides none. It does not indicate whether this is a mutation, whether it affects selected objects, requires a specific mode, or returns any state. The agent is left completely blind to side effects.

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 short, which is concise, but it is unstructured and not front-loaded with purpose. It reads like a raw data dump rather than a coherent sentence, and every word is simply the accepted types, so it fails to communicate the tool's function. It is under-specified rather than efficiently written.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (which we don't see), the description should at least explain what the tool accomplishes and when to use it. Instead it provides only a parameter value list, leaving the agent without essential context about the operation's effect, prerequisites, or relationship to other tools. This is inadequate for even a simple 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?

The schema itself has zero description coverage (no parameter descriptions), and the only clue is the default value 'MEDIAN_POINT'. The description lists the five possible values, which adds meaning by informing the agent of valid inputs. However, it does not explain what each value means or how they affect behavior, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 is just a list of enum-like values ('ACTIVE_ELEMENT, MEDIAN_POINT, INDIVIDUAL_ORIGINS, CURSOR, BOUNDING_BOX_CENTER') and does not state what the tool does or that it sets the pivot point. It lacks a verb and resource, and does not differentiate from any sibling tools, making it effectively a tautology of parameter options.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it contrasts with alternatives. The description offers no context for selection, leaving agents without any basis to decide among the many sibling tools.

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