blender_object_set_origin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable write operation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the method options, like whether existing object data is preserved or if specific permissions are required. It conforms to annotations, no contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences plus Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value (purpose, method examples, parameter summary). No clutter or 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?

For a tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the core function and methods. The return value is noted but vague; however, the presence of an output schema (not shown here) compensates. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., object exists) but is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for all parameters (name, center, origin_type), so the description's brief mention of 'Object name and origin type' adds minimal value. It omits the 'center' parameter entirely. Given schema coverage is effectively high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set the origin point of an object.' It lists multiple supported methods (geometry center, 3D cursor, bottom center for feet), which adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_object_transform or blender_object_get_info.

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 implies usage (e.g., 'suitable for character feet') but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. It lacks exclusions or context for when other tools might be preferred.

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