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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of reversibility, whether transforms are cumulative, or what happens to shapes in groups or locked shapes.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the operation set. It is concise but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 destructive five-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot call this correctly without knowing units, coordinate frames, or how the operations combine.

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 0% and five parameters (dx, dy, scale, rotate, shape_ids) are entirely undocumented. The description says 'move, scale or rotate' but never maps those words to units or semantics — is rotate in degrees or radians, is scale a multiplier or absolute size, are dx/dy relative offsets? Nothing compensates for the schema gap.

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 verb group (move, scale, rotate) and resource (shapes) are stated, so the basic purpose is clear. But it reads as a near-restatement of the title and does not distinguish this from close siblings like resize, flip, align, distribute, or mirror, which an agent must choose between for geometric 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether these transforms are relative or absolute, whether multiple shapes are transformed around a shared origin, or which sibling to prefer for simple resizing versus arbitrary transforms.

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