transform_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses application order (position applied LAST, after rotation/scale), idempotency ('repeating the same position is idempotent', 'NOT a relative offset'), sequential axis order for rotation, the validation behavior and its bypass via eval_ruby, and the shape of the return including that bbox_mm is null for empty geometry.

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?

Front-loaded verb+resource line, then bulleted per-parameter semantics, then validations and return shape — a clean, scannable structure where each block carries weight. There is some overlap with the schema descriptions (position/rotation/scale phrasings are echoed), which slightly dilutes conciseness.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers sequencing, idempotency, validation rules, the eval_ruby escape hatch, and the return payload including the null-bbox edge case. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema text: that position targets the bbox MIN corner specifically, that it is applied after rotation/scale so combined calls land exactly at [x,y,z], and that repeating it is idempotent. It does not add further detail on scale bounds beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set and resource ('Move, rotate and/or scale a group or component') and immediately scopes units (mm / degrees). It also names the related sibling create_component as sharing the same anchor, so an agent can place it relative to that 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?

Gives strong context for when this tool is appropriate versus raw Ruby: the validations 'apply only to this typed tool — raw Ruby driven through eval_ruby bypasses them', implying use this when validation matters. However, it never states an explicit when-not rule or a preferred alternative in the way a 5 requires.

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