object-transform_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention that this is a mutating operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or whether it can be undone. It also doesn't clarify the effects of setting delta values versus absolute values, or whether changing rotation_mode affects existing rotations. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies object state.

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 exceptionally concise at 6 words, which is appropriate for a tool with a clear purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to include important usage context, but it earns a 4 because it is not verbose and every word is meaningful.

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 (8 parameters, including delta and absolute transform values, and a rotation_mode enum), the description is far too sparse. It lacks any explanation of how the parameters interact, prerequisites (e.g., an object must exist), or the effect of setting deltas versus absolute values. The output schema is absent, so the description could have clarified what the tool returns, but it does not.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. However, the input schema itself is quite informative: each parameter has a title that explains its purpose (e.g., 'Scale [x, y, z]', 'Euler rotation in radians'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline is 3. The schema's titles effectively document the parameters, so the lack of description is partly offset.

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 'Set an object's transform fields' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (an object's transform fields), distinguishing it from related tools like object-transform_apply and object-transform_get. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function, even though it doesn't enumerate all the fields.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., object-transform_apply, object-transform_get). The existence of these siblings implies a set vs. get vs. apply distinction, but the description does not clarify that this tool mutates the current transform state, while apply commits modifiers or that get retrieves values. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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