parent_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the keep_transform parameter's behavior (preserving world-space position), which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (objects must exist), or what happens to existing parenting relationships.

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 extremely concise: one brief sentence followed by a parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 parenting tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter behavior adequately. It lacks error handling details or return value info, but these are less critical for such a straightforward 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must add meaning beyond titles. It explains each parameter's role: child_name becomes child, parent_name becomes parent, keep_transform controls transform preservation. This adds clear semantics, though more detail on constraints (e.g., valid object names) would improve it.

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 'parent' and the outcome 'creating a hierarchy'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'join_objects' or 'align_objects' by focusing on hierarchical parenting. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios like position alignment or mesh joining.

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