snap_to_ground

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the behavior (snapping to ground plane) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if rotation is affected, behavior for non-mesh objects, or what happens if already on ground). Basic but not exhaustive.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then a bulleted list of parameters. No fluff or redundant information. Ideal for quick understanding.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the basics but lacks completeness. For instance, it doesn't address edge cases (empty objects, invalid names) or confirm return behavior. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more thorough.

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 adds meaning. It explains 'name' as 'Object name' and 'ground_z' as 'Z value of the ground plane (default 0.0)'. This is functional but minimal; could benefit from more context (e.g., format restrictions).

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 tool's purpose: 'Move an object so its lowest bounding-box point rests on the ground plane.' It specifies the verb (move), resource (object), and the exact effect (snap to ground), distinguishing it from siblings like align_objects or move_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?

The description implies usage for ground snapping but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like align_objects or move_object. There are no exclusions or context on prerequisites.

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