editor_reparent_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the core action and does not mention side effects, validation requirements (e.g., parent must exist), transform preservation, or whether this is a destructive change. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence with no waste or redundancy. It front-loads the core action ('Move') and the key object ('node to a new parent'), making it immediately understandable. This is an example of appropriately economical writing.

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 (2 well-documented parameters, no output schema), the description provides the minimum viable information to understand the operation. However, it lacks behavioral context such as whether the node's global transform is preserved, what happens on failure, or any prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool that modifies the scene tree.

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 clear parameter descriptions ('Node path' and 'New parent path'). The description adds marginal value by clarifying the relationship between the two parameters (moving from one parent to another), but it does not go beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 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 'Move a node to a new parent' clearly specifies the verb 'move' and the resource 'node to a new parent', which precisely distinguishes reparenting from other node operations like editor_move_node (position) or rename_node. The phrase 'new parent' leaves no ambiguity about the operation's intent.

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 versus alternatives. Sibling tools like editor_move_node, modify_node, and remove_node exist, but the description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the tool's specific use case.

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