batch_transform_entities

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does disclose the mutation side-effect ('Mutates entity transforms in active drawing') plus the optimistic-locking requirement. It stops short of stating what happens on fingerprint mismatch (abort vs partial apply) or whether the batch is atomic, which matters for a 10k-entity write.

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?

Three short labeled lines, each earning its place: operation+scope, side-effects, disambiguation. Front-loaded with the verb and the limit, no filler or restatement of the name.

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 no explanation. Given that, the description covers the operation, the scope bound, the mutation warning, the locking precondition, and the sibling alternatives — everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. Only the failure semantics of a fingerprint mismatch remain unstated, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the 1..10000 cardinality bound on semantic_pids and the framing of document_pid + expected_parent_fp as a joint binding precondition. The 'typed translate/rotate-Z/uniform scale' phrasing also constrains the free-form transform object that the schema leaves as additionalProperties.

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?

States a specific verb (Transform), a specific resource (persistent semantic PIDs), the cardinality bound (1..10000), and the three supported transform types. The Disambiguation line explicitly names the single-object siblings it is not, so the tool is separable from object_move/object_rotate/object_scale without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (bulk updates to existing entities) and explicit alternative routing (single objects -> object_move, object_rotate, object_scale). The document PID and fingerprint binding prerequisites are stated up front rather than left for the agent to discover at call time.

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