set_object_transform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: changes are browser-only, not persisted to source, lost on reload, recorded in pending_changes, and reversible via revert_changes. That is exactly the kind of lifecycle/undo information an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the critical '[LIVE PREVIEW]' warning front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place and the whole definition scans in one pass.

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 6-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers persistence, undo, and pending-change tracking, so the agent can call it correctly. The minor omission is that it never states the object is identified by name or uuid, though that detail lives in the schema.

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 already documents name, uuid, position, rotation (in radians), scale, and visible. The description restates the affected fields but adds no units, format, or identification rules beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 second sentence names a specific verb (Set) and the exact transform properties affected (position, rotation, scale, visibility) on an object, which clearly separates it from sibling setters like set_material_property or set_light. It stops short of naming the sibling tools or their boundary conditions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 [LIVE PREVIEW] framing plus 'NOT saved to source code, lost on reload' and the pointer to pending_changes (→ code edits) and revert_changes gives the agent clear context on when and how this applies. It does not explicitly contrast itself with an alternative tool, but the workflow and persistence conditions are spelled out.

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