object.set_origin

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

Annotations provide no read-only/destructive hints, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description adds 'Risk: standard' and 'maturity: L3' but gives no detail about what side effects setting origin might have (e.g., transformation of children, impact on rigging, whether the action is reversible). It does not contradict annotations but adds only minimal metadata.

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 short, but it lacks substantive content. It does not earn its place because it adds nothing the name itself, metadata lines, and the schema already show. It reads like a generic stub rather than concise useful guidance.

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 7 parameters and no output schema explanation, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot understand which object the operation targets, what `origin` enum modes do, or what the result will be. The description is almost entirely uninformative.

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?

The description provides zero explanation of the parameters. With schema coverage at 43%, only three of seven parameters have descriptions, all of which are generic IDs. The key `origin` and `objectId`/`name` parameters are not explained semantically; the description adds no meaning to the input 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 merely restates the command name `object.set_origin` and labels it as a Harness command. It does not explain that this tool sets an object's origin point in Blender, and it offers no verb-resource detail beyond the title. This is essentially a tautology of the tool's name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention object selection, prerequisite operations, or when one would choose set_origin over other object manipulation tools. The only requirement stated is 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply', which is generic and not actionable for choosing this tool.

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