project_transform_write

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses non-destructiveness ('original and painting survive'), a cross-instance side effect ('changes affect ALL referencing instances'), and a post-condition (reslicing/reopening required). It omits failure semantics — e.g. what happens if expected_source_sha256 mismatches — which matters for a write tool.

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 most decision-relevant fact — new file, original preserved — is front-loaded in the first clause, and every following sentence adds distinct information (matrix format, instance side effect, prerequisites, reslice). 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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the matrix/geometry guidance is solid. But for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, leaving index/target/object_id/member undefined is a real gap an agent would hit when calling it.

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 0%, so the description must define all 8 parameters. It explains matrix thoroughly (12-number row-vector order, 3x3 linear then XYZ translation in model units) and implies expected_source_sha256, but says nothing about index, member, target ('build' vs component), object_id (nullable), source, or destination.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Set a build/component affine transform in a NEW 3MF.' The scope (build vs component, new file vs in-place) is stated plainly, so an agent knows the operation. It does not name the closest sibling (native_transform) to disambiguate against.

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 explicit workflow prerequisites: read project_geometry_read and verify source SHA first, and expect to reslice/reopen afterwards. It offers no exclusions or comparison to native_transform / project_painting_write, so the agent must infer when this is the wrong choice.

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