set_transform

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial context: the unlocked/isolated track precondition, the before/after return, and the critical failure-mode guidance that a timeout means an unknown outcome requiring a read-back rather than a blind retry.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, ending with the retry-safety rule. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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 mutation with annotations but no output schema, the definition covers preconditions, the return shape ('before/after'), and failure recovery. Nothing essential an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it resolves the highest-risk ambiguity by specifying the quaternion as '[w,x,y,z]' and clarifying position is world-space with both fields optional. It leaves frame/scene/object semantics to their self-evident names, but the order disambiguation is high-value.

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), resource (transform: world position and/or quaternion), and the target (an existing keyframe). The 'world' qualifier helps separate it from set_local_transform/set_global_transform siblings, though those are not named explicitly.

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?

Provides a precondition ('only isolated unlocked object tracks'), which is useful implicit guidance on when the tool applies. However, it never names alternatives like set_keyframe or set_local_transform, nor the condition that should route the agent away from this tool.

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