object_set_transform

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: partial updates leave omitted transform components unchanged, and rotation is specified in degrees. It does not discuss undo/error behavior, but the added context is meaningful.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and packs the key field, unit, and partial-update details without waste.

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 is adequate for a simple mutation tool and does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained required 'ref' parameter and lack of usage context are notable gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It documents the four optional transform fields as three-number arrays, including rotation units and omission semantics, but the required 'ref' parameter is not explained at all.

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 and resource: setting position, rotation, scale, or pivot on a transform object, and clarifies the units for rotation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like object_set_parent or object_set_attributes, but the transform-specific fields make the distinction clear.

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?

Explains what the tool does, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The partial-update note ('omitted ones stay') is useful but is behavioral semantics rather than usage routing.

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