move_body

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — operations are applied in translate → rotate → mirror order — but it omits the copy/original-preservation semantics and any mention of what happens if only some of the three operations are supplied.

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?

A single sentence, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (order of application) is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter mutation with only 40% schema coverage, the description does not clarify how omitted operations behave, what 'copy' leaves behind, or prerequisites (bodies must already exist / be referenced by name).

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 40%, but the nested Rotation and MirrorPlane fields carry their own descriptions (axis, angle, origin, normal). The description's order-of-application statement is real semantic value over the schema, since it tells the agent that combining translate+rotate+mirror composes in a fixed sequence. It adds nothing about the copy flag or translate offset beyond schema text.

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 names three specific transformation verbs (translate, rotate, mirror) and the resource (bodies), and even states the order of application. It clearly delineates the tool from siblings such as pattern_body or delete_body, though it doesn't explicitly call out an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: it's the tool to reach for when a body must be repositioned or duplicated ('copy'). But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when pattern_body might be the better sibling.

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