reparent_entity

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readonly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns the moved entity summary including the new hierarchy path, and clarifies that preserveTransform keeps the world position. It does not disclose potential edge cases like cycle prevention or default index behavior, but the provided behavioral context is solid.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action comes first, optional behavior second, return value third, and the exclusion with alternative last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, key behavioral option, and routing to an alternative. It does not specify what happens when index is omitted or how hierarchy constraints are handled, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds only modest reinforcement, such as rephrasing preserveTransform as 'keep the entity at the same world position' and mentioning the child index. This is sufficient but not a major value-add over 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Move an entity to a new parent in the hierarchy'. It also identifies what this tool is not for by naming modify_entities as the alternative for changing position/rotation directly, clearly distinguishing it from related siblings.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (reparenting an entity) and when not to use it ('to change position/rotation values directly'), naming the alternative tool modify_entities. It also explains the optional preserveTransform behavior, which helps agents decide whether to set it.

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