reparent_slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: art position is preserved during the reparent. However, it says nothing about reversibility, required project state, error conditions, or whether the slot's draw order changes.

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 with zero filler; the core action comes first and the important caveat follows immediately.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description leaves too much unspecified — particularly the project parameter and failure behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so all three parameters are undocumented in structured data. The description names 'slot' and 'bone' conceptually but gives no format (slot name vs. path, bone path vs. identifier) and never accounts for the required 'project' parameter at all.

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 and resource ('Move a slot to another bone') plus the key constraint ('without moving its art'), so the operation is unambiguous. No sibling tool performs slot reparenting, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 reparent versus other rigging operations, no prerequisites (does the project need to be open? must the bone already exist?), and no mention of alternatives such as rig_transform or add_bones.

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