rig_link_objects

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by guaranteeing that world transforms remain unchanged. However, annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, destructive operation, and the description does not explain what the destructive aspect affects, such as existing parent-child relationships.

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, stating the core operation and the key transform-preservation caveat in two short sentences. The bilingual duplication is acceptable in this context and adds no unnecessary noise.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the schema and description together provide enough information to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of an explicit differentiation from the very similar parent_objects sibling, but return-value and error details are not critical here.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already document the parent name and the optional child list with the current-selection fallback. The main description adds no parameter-level information, 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 states a clear operation: parent objects under a parent while preserving world transforms, and the 'visual position/orientation does not jump' clause adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee. It does not explicitly name or distinguish the sibling parent_objects tool, but the content is sufficiently specific.

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 use case is implied: use this when you need to reparent objects without their world transform changing. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools like parent_objects, constraint_link, or group_objects, nor does it give exclusions or alternative conditions.

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