object.transform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description only needs to add context. It does add that changes are absolute and transaction-scoped, which reinforces mutation semantics. However, it does not clarify what 'destructive' means in practice, such as which existing values are overwritten or how expected_scene_generation participates in safety.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundant statements. It is front-loaded with the main action. The brevity is a strength, though it sacrifices important coverage of the tool's full behavior.

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's complexity — 8 parameters, 4 required fields, nested patch objects, and multiple transform aspects — the description is incomplete. It omits location and rotation entirely and does not explain the required transaction/idempotency/generation semantics. An output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, but the tool still needs more context to be called correctly.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at the scale patch fields and says nothing about location, rotation_euler_degrees, transaction_id, idempotency_key, expected_scene_generation, or expected_object_identity. This leaves most parameter semantics undefined for an agent.

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 names a concrete action and resource ('Set one or more local object scale axes'), but it only mentions scale, while the schema also supports location and rotation_euler_degrees. This makes the description misleading for an agent trying to understand the actual scope of object.transform, and it does not clearly distinguish the tool from sibling setters like object.set.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as object.set or object.visibility.set. The phrase 'inside the active transaction' provides context, but it does not explain prerequisites, exclusions, or why an agent would choose object.transform over another tool.

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