set_global_transform

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely valuable behavior: descendants are updated via the host, and a recovery snapshot is captured before mutation. That tempers the destructive flag and tells the agent about propagation and undo safety, which annotations cannot express.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the side-effect and snapshot facts are informative. Slightly over-packed with three concepts in one clause, but front-loaded and waste-free.

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 destructive 6-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects and snapshot recovery but leaves all parameter semantics undocumented. It is usable but leaves real gaps an agent would need to resolve from the schema alone.

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 0% across 6 parameters and the description never names or explains any of them (scene, root, object, frame, position, rotation_wxyz). 'One joint in world space' only loosely hints at object/position semantics, leaving the required frame/root/scene params completely unexplained.

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 (set) and resource (a joint transform in world space), and the phrase 'in world space' implicitly distinguishes it from the local-space sibling set_local_transform. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls short of a 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?

'Set one joint in world space' implies the scope (single joint, world-space semantics) versus a batch or local variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative guidance despite several closely related sibling tools (set_transform, set_local_transform, set_pose).

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