set_object_transform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (sets properties), works on existing objects only (requires 'object_name' of existing object), supports both absolute and relative modes, allows partial updates (empty strings skip changes), and describes the return format. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, but covers core behavior well.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanations, return format, and multiple usage examples. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise in the examples section (some redundancy), but overall efficiently communicates necessary information.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job. It explains parameters thoroughly, describes the return structure, and provides multiple usage examples. The main gap is lack of error handling information, but given the comprehensive parameter coverage and return format description, it's highly complete.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains each parameter's purpose, format examples, default behaviors (empty strings skip changes), and special cases (single value for uniform scaling). The 'relative' parameter is clearly explained with its default value. This goes far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 tool 'sets transform properties (position/rotation/scale) for specified objects in a 3ds Max scene.' It specifies the exact action (set), resource (object transform properties), and context (3ds Max scene), distinguishing it from siblings like set_object_property (which sets general properties) or set_keyframe (which sets animation keyframes).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to modify position, rotation, or scale of existing objects. It mentions support for absolute and relative modes, and that multiple properties can be set simultaneously. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., set_object_property for other properties).

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