collection.move_object

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

The description states 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and mentions argument checks, but these are generic and not specific to this tool's behavior. With annotations marking all hints as false (no readOnlyHint, no destructiveHint, no idempotentHint), the description fails to disclose that this is a state-changing operation that likely moves an object, potentially removing it from its current collection. It provides no details on side effects, reversibility, or whether the operation is transactional.

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 very short, but it is not effective conciseness; it omits essential purpose and usage information. The single sentence provides minimal value, and the risk/maturity tags feel like boilerplate that does not help an agent. It is under-specified rather than concise, earning a low score.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations to convey safety, and an output schema that is not described), the description is wildly insufficient. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without understanding what it does, which parameters matter, and what side effects to expect. The description fails to provide any of that context, making it dangerously incomplete.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 38%, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it provides zero parameter information. The schema reveals parameters like 'collection', 'name', 'objectId', and 'exclusive', but the description does not explain their meaning or usage. An agent is left to guess what 'exclusive' does or which parameters are required beyond the two required ones.

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 only names the harness command ('collection.move_object') without stating what the tool actually does. It does not mention moving an object between collections, nor does it distinguish from siblings like blender_object_parent or blender_collection_set_visibility. The verb and resource are absent, so an agent cannot infer the tool's core function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that 'per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' but gives no contextual conditions or exclusions. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for moving an object to another collection.

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