set_component_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses rotation order (X then Y then Z about assembly axes), that fixed components are supported, and that the transform is read back and compared so ignored moves fail loudly. This goes well beyond a generic 'moves a component' statement, though it does not describe return values or success output.

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 carry high-density information with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds crucial parameter and failure-mode details. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: coordinates, rotation units/order, component naming, and error behavior. It is slightly ambiguous what 'fixed component' exactly means versus 'pinned by mates,' but overall it gives an agent enough to call and interpret the result.

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%, and the description compensates fully: it explains name with example format ('Bed' or 'Bed-1'), gives units for x/y/z (mm) and rx/ry/rz (degrees), clarifies rotation order, and states the origin is moved to the provided coordinates. All seven parameters are meaningfully defined.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move/rotate a component: its origin to (x, y, z) mm, rotated rx/ry/rz degrees.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_dimension, set_material, and insert_component by stating exactly what it does.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of behavior ('work on a fixed component too', 'fails loudly instead of silently leaving the part'), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison to alternative tools. The context is clear enough, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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