entity_transform

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to carry the full safety burden. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the transform is applied in parent coordinates, the order is scale-then-rotate-then-translate, matrix format is column-major with translation in the specified unit, and axis-angle is preferred over legacy Euler.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then dense with operational conventions. Every sentence adds specific information about how to invoke the tool correctly, with no filler.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotation detail, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It explains transform semantics but omits parameter necessity, path/entity_id/model_id usage, pivot behavior, and expected return or error behavior.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds valuable semantics for several key parameters (matrix format, rotation convention, scale/rotate/translate order, unit handling), but it leaves many parameters unexplained, including entity_id, path, model_id, pivot, and the precise relationship between translation, rotation_degrees, axis, and angle_degrees.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Transform a group/instance in its parent coordinates.' It also specifies the transform order (scale, rotate, translate), which makes the operation unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as entity_update, so it stops 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?

The description gives parameter-selection preferences ('Matrix replaces transform', 'Axis-angle preferred'), but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance.

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