Move Body

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

Annotations declare it as a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the rotation-then-translation ordering, the pivot-based rotation model, the right-hand axis convention, and a units caveat (cm and degrees rather than mm). It stops short of saying what happens on an unknown body name or whether the move is undoable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the operation sequence, then the units contract. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the geometric semantics and unit conventions an agent needs to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are modest: error behavior for a missing body name, default behavior when only body_name is supplied, and interaction with any design history.

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 only 11% (only 'angle' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does well: it explains that x/y/z are a translation, that pivot_x/y/z define the rotation point, that axis is the rotation axis, and that lengths are in cm while angles are in degrees. Defaults and the required body_name remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move a named body') and details the two composed operations (rotation about a pivot axis, then translation), which cleanly separates it from scale_body and mirror without naming them. It lacks explicit sibling disambiguation, but the operation semantics are 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?

Usage is implied by the operation description (use to reposition/rotate an existing body), but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over mirror, scale_body, or pattern tools, nor any prerequisites (does the body need to be a standalone body vs a component?).

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