unity_gameobject_set_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that it sets transform values, but does not clarify whether this overwrites existing values or merges, what happens if no transform component exists, or whether it operates on world or local space (the 'local' parameter suggests this, but the description does not explain it). The lack of details about side effects or failure modes is a gap.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about optionality or local vs world, but it is not wasteful.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions (e.g., GameObject not found), or the effect of partial input (e.g., setting only position leaves rotation unchanged). The complexity warrants more detail.

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 57%: parameters like path, instanceId, local, and port have descriptions; position, rotation, scale objects have no property descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only mentioning 'position, rotation, scale' as a group. It does not explain that these are optional or default behavior when omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

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 (position, rotation, scale) of a GameObject. It distinguishes from siblings like unity_gameobject_info (read-only) and unity_gameobject_set_active (toggles active state) by focusing on transform manipulation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other transform-related tools if any exist.

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 usage when modifying a GameObject's transform, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like setting individual properties via unity_component_set_property. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The port parameter description offers some routing guidance but is part of schema.

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