set_placement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool mutates placement, but does not disclose coordinate system conventions, whether values are absolute or relative, how document targeting works, or what happens on invalid input.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core operation with zero wasted words. It is concise without sacrificing the key semantic distinction between position and rotation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is under-specified for a mutation tool. It omits the role of doc_name and does not explain how the placement applies within a document context, leaving an agent to guess at required conventions.

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 to position and rotation by interpreting them as XYZ coordinates and Euler angles, which is valuable beyond the raw numeric-array schema. However, it leaves the doc_name parameter undocumented and does not clarify array lengths or units.

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 states a specific action ('Set') on a clear resource ('an object's XYZ placement') and distinctly names the orientation parameters as yaw/pitch/roll Euler angles. This differentiates it from the sibling creation, inspection, and boolean tools effectively.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as the object needing to already exist in a document. The description implies the action but does not clarify the context or exclusions.

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