Set source transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the flexible transform parameters, but it omits mention of the 'confirm' parameter and any side effects (e.g., whether changes are permanent or require confirmation). This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is efficient: two sentences plus an example, with no wasteful wording. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately lists the supported transform options, making it easy to scan.

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 that transform is a complex nested object and there is no annotation support, the description does a good job covering the main complexity. It omits details about the confirm parameter and any prerequisites (e.g., existing source), but the overall guidance is sufficient for most uses, especially with an output schema present.

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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the description compensates by enumerating the transform properties (position, scale, rotation, bounds, crop, alignment). It does not explain the confirm parameter, but for the core transform object, it adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs: 'Move, scale, rotate or crop a source in a scene.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_source_transform by focusing on the set operation, and the example reinforces the intent.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to modify a source's transform) and even shows an example command. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is evident, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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