align_objects

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds that position, rotation, and scale can be toggled independently, which is useful. However, it does not disclose how alignment is computed (e.g., pivot vs. bounding box) or whether existing transforms are overwritten in place.

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 fairly short and front-loaded, but it repeats the same content in Chinese and English, adding redundant length. The core information is present, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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 parameter schema covers the inputs well, and the description supplies practical use cases. However, for a tool that modifies objects, it lacks detail about alignment reference (pivot, center, bounding box), coordinate space, and whether the operation is reversible beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described including defaults. The description merely restates the existence of position/rotation/scale toggles without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'align' and the resource ('several objects to a target'), and gives concrete use cases like placing props and aligning cameras. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as cam_align_to_view or light_align_to_object, but the object-target framing is sufficiently distinct.

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 provides explicit usage context: batch alignment for props, cameras, and aim points. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the use cases are clear enough to guide an agent.

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