transform_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — that rotation is 'absolute' rather than relative — but says nothing about what happens to unspecified axes, whether copies duplicates the object destructively, whether the object must already exist, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and the three transform categories. Every clause maps to a parameter group.

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?

With six parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the required object_id entirely, does not explain per-axis null defaults, and gives no sense of the mutation's side effects on the plate.

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 must compensate. It adds real value by supplying units (degrees for rotate_x/y/z, percent for scale_percent) that the schema lacks, and it names 'number of copies'. However, it never mentions object_id, the one required parameter, and doesn't explain that null defaults leave a property unchanged.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and the resources it acts on (absolute rotation in degrees, scale in percent, number of copies) of 'an object'. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like place_instance or arrange_plate that also reposition objects.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as place_instance for positioning or add_model for new objects. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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