translate_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the object's location is updated permanently), how the 'name' parameter identifies the target object, or the effect of the 'local' flag. The description does not clarify what happens to the object's transform or whether the operation is reversible.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without extraneous detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable and front-loaded.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to specify the target object (name), what the 'local' parameter does in practice, or what the return value is. An agent would need to infer these from the schema alone, which is inadequate for a transformation operation.

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 67% (local and translation have descriptions, name does not). The description itself adds no parameter information—it merely restates the purpose. Since the schema already documents local and translation, the description's contribution is minimal, but it does not contradict the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Move') and resource ('an object'), and specifies the nature of the move as 'by a delta (relative)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_transform (absolute) and rotate_object/scale_object, which handle other transformation types.

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 implies the tool is for relative movement but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like set_transform or absolute positioning. It lacks any exclusionary or comparative guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the 'relative' wording. No alternatives are named.

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