set_instance_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals important non-obvious behavior: rotation is reset to identity, and the call fails on fixed/grounded instances. It could additionally mention the expected return or side effects, but it covers the most critical operational caveats.

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 with no filler: primary behavior, unit convention, sibling distinction, and a failure mode are all included. The most operationally important caveats appear early.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is strong: it covers positioning semantics, unit handling, rotation behavior, and failure conditions. It could clarify the coordinate frame or expected return value, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the unit convention for x/y/z (bare numbers as mm, unit strings accepted) and explains the 'absolute' semantics, but it adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already say.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Set an instance to an ABSOLUTE position') and clearly distinguishes itself from transform_instance by describing the difference. This lets an agent disambiguate without inspecting the sibling tool.

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 explicitly names the alternative transform_instance and gives the decision-relevant contrast: absolute coordinates and identity rotation reset. It also states a concrete when-not-to-use condition: fixed/grounded instances fail with a 400.

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