set_origin

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects such as whether geometry vertices are moved relative to the new origin, whether transformations are affected, or any other implications. The type list is present but lacks contextual details.

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 a sentence followed by a list of types. No filler or redundant content. It is appropriately short and front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, behavioral side effects, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema is not enough to compensate for these missing elements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists valid values for the 'type' parameter (ORIGIN_GEOMETRY, etc.) but does not explain what these types mean or how they affect the operation. The 'name' parameter is only implied as an object reference, with no additional semantics provided.

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 ('Set an object's origin point') and the resource (object). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_transform by focusing specifically on origin manipulation rather than general transforms.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_transform or apply_transform. The list of types implies some options but does not explain when each is appropriate or provide any exclusion criteria.

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