transform_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions that dimensions preserves bevels, which is useful, but omits whether transforms are destructive, reversible, permission-gated, or how relative vs absolute modes interact.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the main operations. It is tight and wastes little space, though the 'dimensions=' notation is slightly cryptic and the second sentence is a narrow tip rather than broad structure.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how apply_scale or apply_rotation behave, how objects are selected, or what side effects occur.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a small semantic note about dimensions being safer for preserving bevels, but does not explain the other 9 parameters or disambiguate scale versus dimensions.

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 set of operations on objects: move, rotate, and resize. This is clear and distinct from creation or inspection tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from related siblings such as place_object or edit_mesh.

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 only guidance is a parameter preference: 'dimensions= is the safe way to resize.' There is no statement about when to use transform_object versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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