set_pivot

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, meaning this tool can modify the scene. The description does not add explicit warnings about destructive effects, but it does mention the importance of setting the pivot before baking/parenting. It does not contradict annotations and adds some workflow context, but lacks details on reversible behavior or implications of mode changes.

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 concise, with a clear bilingual structure (Chinese and English) and a well-placed key usage tip at the end. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the critical information about modes and when to use is front-loaded. No redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and that the schema fully describes parameters, the description covers the essential usage context, including modes and workflow timing. It lacks detailed behavioral context (e.g., how the property change affects other object properties), but for a pivot-set tool this is likely sufficient. No output schema exists, but return values are not critical for decision-making.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all parameters with 100% coverage. The description summarizes the enum meanings (place/center/origin) but does not add additional syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. For instance, it clarifies that 'position' is only used in 'place' mode, which is implicitly stated in the schema but not explicitly. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'move or center an object's pivot' with specific resources (objects). It distinguishes three modes (place, center, origin) and highlights the purpose in animation/parenting workflows. It effectively differentiates from other object manipulation tools by focusing specifically on pivot point manipulation.

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 explains when to use the tool (before baking animation or parenting) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case. It provides a clear functional context without exclusions.

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