godot_reparent_node

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

The annotations indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description doesn't disclose side effects beyond the action itself. It doesn't mention ordering implications, transform preservation (though covered by parameter), or potential errors, so the agent lacks awareness of full behavioral impact.

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, succinct sentence with no redundancy. It immediately conveys the core operation without filler.

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?

While the output schema is provided, the description doesn't address edge cases (e.g., node not found, invalid parent) or any constraints on usage. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, but it's not severely incomplete given the clarity of the core action.

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 already provides descriptive text for each parameter (e.g., node_path, new_parent_path, new_index, keep_global_transform). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'move' and the resource 'node' to a 'new parent' within the 'active scene tree'. This is specific and distinguishes it from related operations like setting ownership or deleting nodes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_set_node_owner or godot_duplicate_node. It doesn't mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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