Shape transform

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

Annotations declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that a wrapper node is created and when to prefer the alternative, but says nothing about units, coordinate frame (local vs world), or whether repeated calls stack transforms — meaningful gaps for a non-idempotent transform 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the routing rule. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

For a mutating, non-idempotent transform tool with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description covers the main routing decision but omits transform conventions, return value (e.g., the new transform node id), and repeated-call behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.

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 only 20% (only 'input' is documented as 'Node id'). The description names translate/rotate/scale, which maps to three of the five parameters, but does not explain the required 3-element array order, whether rotate_deg is Euler angles, or the units/origin used. Baseline 3 given partial compensation.

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: wrapping a node with translate/rotate/scale. It also names the sibling it should not be confused with (shape_set_params on a transform node), which helps an agent distinguish it. Slightly short of 5 because 'wrap' leaves some ambiguity about what exactly is created (a transform container vs. a modified node).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'To move an existing shape, prefer shape_set_params on its transform node if it has one.' That is a real when-to-use-other rule with a condition. It doesn't cover other plausible alternatives (shape_edit_node, shape_array) or state prerequisites, so not a full 5.

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