x3d_move_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the node is detached and appended, that cycles are detected and prevented, and that an empty new_parent_def moves the node to be a direct child of <Scene>. This goes beyond a minimal statement. It does not mention error handling or whether the source is mutated in place, but given the output schema, return values are likely covered. Overall, it provides strong behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two sentences of crucial behavioral details, and then a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the operation, special constraints (cycle prevention), and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly list error conditions, but the output schema likely defines the response structure. Overall, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for parameters. The description's Args section explicitly explains the meaning and format of each parameter, including the default behavior of new_parent_def. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and gives the agent clear guidance on how to fill in each argument.

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 function with a specific verb ('Reparent') and resource ('a node from its current parent to a new parent in the scene graph'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like x3d_add_node and x3d_remove_node by focusing on moving an existing node rather than adding or removing. The details about detaching and appending further clarify the operation.

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 use cases by describing the reparenting action, and the special behavior for new_parent_def='' provides context. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., x3d_add_node) or state any exclusions. Sibling tool names offer some differentiation but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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