Transform obstacle

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that rotation is GUI metadata only and that &OBST stays axis-aligned, with rotated furniture exported through its voxels, and that scale stretches the XB about its centre and rescales furniture voxels. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent needs. It does not state the return payload or error behavior, capping it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the verb/resource, then enumerates each parameter's semantics compactly in a single dense paragraph, with the bulc rule references appended last. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed, though the trailing rule-ID line is slightly noisy.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers operation semantics, composition, and the non-obvious axis-alignment/rotation distinction. It omits any statement of what is returned or what happens on invalid IDs, but those gaps are minor given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds real meaning: it defines move as relative vs place_at as absolute, names the anchor default (XB centre), clarifies scale is absolute per-axis, and adds the rotation-as-GUI-metadata caveat absent from the schema. It goes beyond the schema rather than restating it.

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 set of operations (move/resize/rotate) on a specific resource (existing obstacle), with a concrete anchor to the GUI's 3D gizmo and SX/SY/SZ property panel. Clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling update_obstacle or shape_transform, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

'Combine as many as you need in one call' gives genuine guidance on operation composition, and the mention of GUI parity implies it is the interactive-editing path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus update_obstacle/shape_transform, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. selection state or ID discovery), so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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