move_object

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

With no annotations, the description correctly implies a write operation (moving an object). It specifies 'absolute world-space position', which tells the agent the coordinates are in world space. However, it doesn't clarify error handling (e.g., invalid object name) or whether it overwrites previous transforms.

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 sentence of eight words, conveying the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 simple move tool, the description covers the essential purpose. It specifies absolute world positioning, which is a key detail. It does not address optional constraints (e.g., only mesh objects, or nested children), but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 the description must add meaning. The phrase 'absolute world-space position' adds context to the x, y, z parameters, indicating they represent global coordinates. However, it does not explain the 'name' parameter (which object to move) beyond the implicit context of 'an object'.

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 ('move'), the resource ('an object'), and the specific nature ('absolute world-space position'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'rotate_object' and 'scale_object'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_vertex_position for vertex-level movement, or set_transform). The term 'absolute' hints at usage for exact placement, but no when-not-to-use info is given.

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