move_object

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 states key behaviors: 'It stays on the floor and inside the room' (constraints) and 'the returned report notes any unresolved collision' (output behavior). This goes beyond a simple 'move object' and informs the agent about expectations and side effects. It could mention whether the operation is reversible or if it triggers any other side effects, but for a simple move it's quite informative.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and target, and includes critical behavioral constraints in a compact form. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are not required in the description. With 3 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should clarify parameter semantics further. It vaguely implies id and x/y but not explicit mapping. However, given the output schema exists and the behavior is clear, it's nearly complete. Could be improved by explicitly mentioning parameter names and units, but not severely lacking.

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%, meaning the parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'id' and 'world position (x, y)', but does not explicitly label the parameters or provide constraints (e.g., bounds for x and y). Since the schema has no descriptions, the tool description must compensate, but it only partially does so by implying the meaning but not detailing each parameter. This is a significant gap.

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 action ('Move'), the resource ('object'), and the target ('world position (x, y)'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like rotate_object and scale_object, but doesn't explicitly mention alternative move-related tools, though none exist in the sibling list. It's clear and concise.

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 when to use the tool (when moving object is needed), but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't state conditions like 'not for moving the camera' or 'use replace_object for changing object type'. However, the sibling context shows no similar move tool, so clarity in purpose partially compensates. Still, a clear when-to-use statement is missing.

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