Transform object

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the units for each transform, the relative vs. absolute semantics, and the hardware requirement "[needs M4b]". This helps the agent understand operational constraints and coordinate semantics.

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 extremely concise: two sentences deliver the main action, parameter semantics, units, and a prerequisite. Every clause adds meaningful information, with no fluff or repetition. The sentence structure is front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to specify each transform, and a hardware prerequisite. Minor gaps like coordinate frame (world vs. local) and transformation order when multiple are provided exist, but the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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 provides only parameter names and array types with zero descriptions. The description fully compensates by defining each parameter's meaning and format: translate=[dx,dy,dz] mm (relative), rotate=[rx,ry,rz] degrees (relative), scale=[sx,sy,sz] absolute factor, and the requirement to provide at least one. This is essential for correct invocation and goes well beyond the 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 function: "Move/rotate/scale an object by id." This provides a specific verb (move/rotate/scale) and resource (object by id), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_object, duplicate_object, and set_object_config. The transformation semantics are immediately 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?

The description provides clear usage context by enumerating the three transform types with their exact formats and units (translate in mm relative, rotate in degrees relative, scale as an absolute factor) and requiring at least one transform. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would merit a 5. Still, the parameter-level guidance is strong.

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