blender_set_transform

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds useful context about relative vs absolute behavior, which is beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether rotation_mode is required for relative rotations, or what happens when only some transform components are provided.

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 with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the relative-mode caveat is placed immediately after, which is exactly where an agent needs it.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral distinction but leaves gaps: rotation_mode semantics, interaction between relative and individual transform components, and what the response contains. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description could do more to make the tool fully self-explanatory.

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 57%, and the description adds the crucial semantic distinction between relative and absolute modes. However, it doesn't explain the rotation_mode parameter, which is undocumented in the schema, nor does it clarify how null values interact with relative mode. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Set or offset') and resource ('the transform of one or more objects'), which clearly distinguishes it from most siblings. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from related tools like blender_apply_transform or blender_look_at.

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 explains the key behavioral distinction between absolute and relative mode, which implies when to use each. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over blender_apply_transform or other transform-related siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites like object selection.

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