translate_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key trait of in-place mutation ('no new copy'), which is useful, but it lacks details on coordinate systems, units, error conditions, or whether changes are reversible. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively conveys the main purpose and key behavior in a compact form.

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 tool with four required parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as the coordinate system for the translation vector, the meaning of source_ref, and any preconditions or side effects. While an output schema exists, the description itself does not provide enough context for a new user to invoke the tool correctly without further investigation.

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 adds meaning by identifying dx, dy, dz as vector components, which is not evident from the bare schema titles (Dx, Dy, Dz). However, it does not explain the units or coordinate system, nor does it clarify that source_ref refers to the object to translate. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides partial compensation.

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 the action (translate), the resource (GEOM object), and the specifics (in place by vector components), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rotate_object and copy_object. The phrase 'in place' explicitly indicates mutation rather than creating a new copy.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it is for translating objects, but does not mention exclusions (e.g., not for copying) or alternative tools for other transformations.

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