editor_move_node

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Move' and gives no details about side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the scene file, requires undo support, or whether position is absolute/relative), no coordinate space, and no feedback on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action. This is appropriately concise for an operation with only two parameters.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the schema covers the parameters. However, the description lacks context about how this differs from the many sibling tools, especially 'set_node_position', and does not specify whether it is editor-specific (despite the name) or what happens on invocation. Missing behavioral and usage details reduce completeness.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the meaning of 'position' is already stated with examples). It does not clarify relationships between parameters or type constraints beyond the schema.

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 action ('Move') and resource ('2D/3D node'), with a specific new position. It distinguishes from rotation/scale tools, but does not differentiate from the nearly identical sibling 'set_node_position', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'set_node_position', 'transform_node', or 'modify_node'. It does not state prerequisites, such as requiring an open scene or the editor running, nor does it mention any excluded contexts.

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