move_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation without mentioning side effects such as whether the node's global transform is preserved, how child nodes are handled, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens if paths are invalid. Given the mutation nature of the tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 that is direct and free of extraneous words. It front-loads the action and clearly states the object and destination. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an ideal concise description.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention critical behavioral details such as transform preservation, handling of child nodes, uniqueness constraints, or error responses. Although the operation is conceptually simple, the missing context around reparenting semantics (e.g., does the node retain world position?) leaves the agent under-informed.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not describe the two parameters. While the parameter names 'node_path' and 'new_parent_path' are self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema's type and required fields. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving potential ambiguity about expected path formats (e.g., absolute vs relative, node names with special characters).

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 uses a specific verb 'reparent' and identifies the resource ('a node') and destination ('to a new parent'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rename_node, delete_node, and duplicate_node. The phrase 'in the edited scene' adds scoping, making the tool's purpose 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 implies usage for restructuring the scene hierarchy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use this instead of remove + add'). No mention of prerequisites or conditions for reparenting is given. It relies on the user understanding the standard concept of reparenting.

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