transform_object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating a potentially destructive write operation. The description adds the 'absolute or relative' distinction, which is useful context for how the transform is applied, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing transforms, requires object selection, or has undo limitations. The description doesn't contradict the annotations, but the added value beyond annotations is minimal.

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 front-loads the core operations and mode. Every word adds meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention return values, coordinate systems, or any side effects (e.g., whether existing transforms are replaced). While the output schema may define return structure, the description lacks operational context needed to safely invoke this tool. The brief description is not enough for a tool with four required parameters and a destructive hint.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter meaning. It maps 'move/rotate/scale' to location, rotation, and scale parameters, and 'absolut atau relatif' to the 'relative' boolean. However, it does not explain the expected array formats (e.g., [x,y,z] vs [x,y,z,w]) or units, and the 'name' parameter is left completely undefined. The high-level mapping helps but is insufficient for a tool with five parameters.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: moving, rotating, and scaling objects (transform). It specifies the resource (objects) and the modes (absolute or relative), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like apply_transform or batch_set_scale. The verb 'transform' plus the explicit list of operations makes the purpose 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_transform or duplicate_object. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for specific scenarios. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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