Transform elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose key semantics: rotate ADDS degrees about the element origin (relative, not absolute) and scale MULTIPLIES size about the origin. That is genuinely useful and not derivable from the enum. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility (a bb_undo exists), failure behavior, or whether the transform is applied to targets atomically.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb list and then parameter semantics in order. Every sentence conveys information, though the move/rotate/scale clause chain is dense enough to require a second read.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the description covers operations and pivot semantics reasonably but leaves the targets parameter (required!) unexplained, does not indicate whether transforms are undoable, and says nothing about return or error behavior.

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 coverage is only 33% (axis and amount are undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that vector is [x,y,z] for move/scale as a factor and degrees-per-axis for rotate, that axis+amount is an alternative form, and that origin is an optional pivot defaulting to each element origin. The only unaddressed parameter is targets, whose format is not explained anywhere.

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?

Opens with a specific verb triple and resource: 'Move, rotate or scale elements.' That clearly separates it from sibling mutation tools like bb_mirror_elements, bb_array_elements and bb_duplicate_elements, each of which performs a different geometric operation. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives applicability rules for each operation ('Move translates from/to/origin (cubes) or origin/position (others)' and scale applies to 'cubes, meshes, texture_mesh'), which is real guidance on which element types each mode supports. It does not say when to prefer this tool over bb_array_elements or bb_mirror_elements for compound transforms, so guidance remains implied.

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