Move Archicad elements by a specified 3D vector, optionally copying them, to reposition or duplicate model objects.
Moves elements with a given vector. (Tapir, Element Commands)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| elementsWithMoveVectors | Yes | The elements with move vector pairs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations - no note on irreversibility, undo availability (archicad_undo exists), or that coordinates are model-space - and does not contradict them.
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?
One short sentence front-loads the action and the input, with no wasted prose. The parenthetical tag is the only filler, so it is close to optimally sized for what it attempts.
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?
The schema is fully documented and annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent can invoke it. However, for a destructive mutation tool the description omits any usage context (coordinate semantics, whether moves are in a shared reference frame, batching behavior), leaving it minimally viable.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a single array parameter whose elementId, moveVector, and copy fields are all documented inline. The description's 'given vector' phrasing adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (moves) and resource (elements) plus the mechanism (a given vector), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like archicad_rotate_elements. It stops short of naming alternatives or scope, so it is clear but not differentiating.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it differs from archicad_rotate_elements or the copy-vs-move choice. The '(Tapir, Element Commands)' tag is provenance metadata, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.