build_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what transformations are possible but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive operation (does it modify the source structure?), what permissions are needed, whether there are size/coordinate limits, what happens if transformations overlap existing structures, or what the output looks like. For a complex 12-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides use cases, and the third offers popular options. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Popular options' section could be integrated more smoothly. It's front-loaded with the main functionality.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the transformation types well and provides some parameter context, but lacks critical behavioral information about the operation's effects, constraints, and output. For a tool that manipulates game world structures, more context about side effects and limitations would be helpful.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining transformation types with plain-language equivalents ('copy=duplicate, mirror_x=flip horizontally, scale_up=make 2x bigger') that go beyond the enum values. It also clarifies the material parameter's behavior ('leave empty to copy original blocks'). This provides helpful semantic context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 transforms structures through copying, rotating, mirroring, or scaling, with specific examples like duplicating buildings and creating mirror images. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on transformation of existing structures rather than building new shapes from scratch (like build_cube, build_sphere). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from build_rotate, which appears to be a sibling tool.

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 implied usage context through examples ('Perfect for duplicating buildings, creating mirror images, or making scaled versions') and mentions 'popular options' for transformations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_rotate or when not to use it. No prerequisites or constraints are mentioned.

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