game_reparent_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core reparenting operation but does not mention side effects such as children moving with the node, transform preservation behavior beyond the schema's keepGlobalTransform default, invalid-path error behavior, or the implication that the game must be actively running.

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 with zero wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and object before the scope qualifier. Every word 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?

For a runtime mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what but omits error conditions, return values, and edge-case behavior such as invalid paths or reparenting a node into its own descendant. It is minimally viable for basic invocation but leaves gaps an agent may need to probe at runtime.

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 100%, with all three parameters (nodePath, newParentPath, keepGlobalTransform) already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a node to a new parent'), scoped to 'the running game's scene tree.' The runtime qualifier clearly distinguishes it from static scene-file tools like modify_scene_node and remove_scene_node.

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 'running game's scene tree' phrasing gives clear context that this tool operates on the live tree at runtime, separating it from file-based scene manipulation siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, which would warrant a 5.

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