set_object_transform

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

The description goes beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by explicitly stating that changes are 'runtime-only preview (lost on reload)' and requiring user confirmation. This adds valuable behavioral context not captured in structured fields.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded. The warning about asking the user is repeated, which creates minor redundancy, but overall the content is efficient and earns its place.

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?

The description covers the crucial transient nature and user-permission requirement, but it lacks information about the return value (e.g., success indication) and error handling. For a tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented (e.g., 'Object name', '[x, y, z]'). The description only lists the categories of parameters without adding new details, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.

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 'position, rotation, scale, or visibility' of a scene object, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'set_*' tools by listing the exact attributes and emphasizing the runtime-only preview nature.

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 repeatedly instructs the agent to ask the user first whether they want a runtime preview or persistent code change. This provides clear context for when to use the tool (runtime preview) and when not to, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for persistent changes.

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