objects_move

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation and irreversibility profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that — metres as the unit, quaternion component order [x,y,z,w], and the locking prerequisite — but never says what happens to unspecified transforms or how physics/clamping alters the requested pose. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is fair.

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?

Three dense sentences: the payload and units come first, the blocking precondition second, and verification last. No filler and nothing buried.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers units, encoding, prerequisites, and how to confirm the result. The remaining gap is whether position is required versus optional and the effect of omission.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates for the undocumented ones: position is in metres, rotation is a quaternion ordered [x,y,z,w], scale is [x,y,z]. It does not clarify that position is optional or what omitting it does, and object/table_id are already covered by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (place) and resource (object) with units (metres) and the optional rotation/scale payloads, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly contrast with objects_patch, which is the obvious nearby sibling for changes to an object, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — locked objects must be unlocked with objects_lock first — and a follow-up step, inspecting state to verify clamping/physics. It stops short of naming when to prefer objects_patch over this tool, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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