editor_reparent_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — the move is recorded in Undo/Redo history — and implies that all entities must already be loaded. It stays silent on failure behavior (e.g., invalid or cross-scene parents) and any confirmation or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the target-selection rule and the transform decision both front-loaded. Every clause contributes operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool the description leaves gaps: it does not state what the unused ID should be set to (null vs omitted), what happens if the parent is in a different scene, or whether the actor must be unselected or unlocked.

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 only 25% (only actorId is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does: the mutual-exclusivity rule between sceneId and parentId and the meaning of preserveWorldTransform are both stated. This is real added value the schema alone does not convey, since the schema marks both ID parameters as required.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Moves a loaded actor') plus the destination targets (parent or scene root). It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but the operation is distinctive enough among the listed tools that misselection is unlikely.

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?

'Set exactly one of sceneId or parentId' is an explicit invocation constraint, and 'loaded' implies a prerequisite state for the actor, parent, and scene. However, there is no guidance on when to reparent versus use editor_modify_actor or editor_create_actor, and no when-not conditions.

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