translate_object

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behavior: it can either add to current position (relative) or set absolute position, and units are Blender units (meters). It does not disclose error handling or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and conditions are stated clearly. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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's simplicity and no output schema, the description covers the main points. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., object must exist) and error behavior. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, more context on return effect and limitations would improve completeness.

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. It explains the 'relative' parameter, the units for x/y/z, and the default behavior. While 'name' is not described, the description adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states 'Move an object,' which specifies the action (verb) and resource (object). It distinguishes relative vs absolute positioning, and the name alone differentiates it from sibling tools like rotate_object and scale_object.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use relative vs absolute positioning via the 'relative' parameter. However, it does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like batch_transform or align_objects, though the name implies translation.

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