blender_transform_object

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the `None` semantics for leaving fields unchanged, idempotency in plain language, and the return format (JSON with updated transform values). While the idempotentHint is already in annotations, the description clarifies its practical meaning and introduces the partial-update behavior not present in annotations.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear summary sentence, two key behavioral notes, an Args/Returns section, and a single illustrative example. Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose, avoiding redundancy with the schema.

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 moderately simple tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains partial updates, idempotency, and the return value, and includes an example. The only minor omission is handling of non-existent objects, but this is not essential for correct usage and is implied by 'existing object.'

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?

Though the top-level schema reports 0% coverage, the nested schema describes each field ('New (x, y, z) scale factors', 'Omit to leave unchanged', etc.). The description reinforces these semantics and adds an example call showing how to set location and scale together. It also explains the `params` wrapper, making its structure clear, so the description compensates for any coverage gaps.

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 opens with 'Set location, rotation, and/or scale of an existing object,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from siblings like create_primitive or delete_object. It also clarifies the scope (existing object) and the exact transform properties involved, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 the tool: to modify an existing object's transform. It also explains partial updates ('Any field left as `None` is left unchanged') and idempotency, which guides usage in repeated or incremental operations. However, it does not explicitly exclude or name alternative tools, which would merit a 5.

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