Position or relocate objects in a Bambu Studio project by absolute or relative coordinates, rotate around Z, or move to another plate while preserving coordinates.
Move an object (by name or id): absolute x/y, relative dx/dy, rotate around Z by rotate_z degrees, or move it to another plate (it keeps x/y if given, otherwise it goes to a free spot).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| dx | No | ||
| dy | No | ||
| plate | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| rotate_z | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that plate moves preserve x/y when supplied and otherwise choose a free spot, but it does not cover prerequisites, mutation side effects, undo behavior, or what the call returns.
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 definition is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then efficiently enumerates the supported modes. There is no filler.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on coordinate units, default plate semantics, preconditions, and side effects.
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, and it does explain the roles of object, x/y, dx/dy, rotate_z, and plate. It still omits coordinate units, constraints, and what the default plate value 0 means.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Move an object') and enumerates the supported move modes: absolute x/y, relative dx/dy, Z rotation, and plate transfer. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as transform_object, align_objects, or arrange.
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?
It explains when to use the different parameter modes, such as absolute x/y versus relative dx/dy versus plate transfer with optional x/y preservation. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool instead of transform_object, align_objects, or arrange.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.