blender_object_transform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is set, not whether omitted parameters are left unchanged or reset, what coordinate system or units are used, whether values are absolute or relative, or what happens if the object does not exist. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, and the key action and target are front-loaded.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the behavior of partially specified transforms, units (e.g., radians vs degrees), or error conditions such as a missing object, leaving an agent to guess important invocation details.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for name, scale, location, and rotation. The description adds little beyond restating these fields, though the phrase 'and/or' usefully implies that any subset of the transform properties can be provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('an object') and explicitly names the three transform properties: location, rotation, and scale. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like blender_object_set_origin or blender_object_apply_transforms by focusing on direct transform assignment.

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?

It is implicitly clear that this tool is for directly setting an object's transform properties, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools like blender_object_apply_transforms, blender_object_set_origin, or blender_mesh_proportional_transform. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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