parent_objects

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-readonly and destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: keepTransform preserves world transform, and parenting under a scaled parent will skew children. This warns about a real side effect and suggests a mitigation, which is exactly the kind of extra context the dimension rewards.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavior, then the caveat. The bilingual structure duplicates content, but both languages are intentional for usability, and there is no filler or irrelevant information.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the key transform semantics, and the main pitfall. Edge details like object selection fallback are already in the schema, so nothing critical appears missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents parent, objects, and keepTransform thoroughly. The description mostly restates keepTransform's meaning without adding new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact operation: 'Link objects under a parent (build a hierarchy).' This is a specific verb and resource that clearly conveys the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like group_objects or constraint_link, but the parent/child wording makes the core 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 provides clear context: it builds hierarchies and explains the keepTransform behavior. It also adds a practical warning about scaling the parent skewing children and suggests reset_transform when needed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a top score.

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