pro_assembly_pose

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds valuable context: native readback and rollback on failure, no rebuild or save, and the caveat that mates may override transforms on later rebuild. It also clarifies that dry_run inventories poses rather than applying them.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by critical caveats. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 destructive batch mutation with no output schema and entirely undocumented schema fields, the description supplies the key behavioral contract: rollback on failure, no rebuild/save, mate override, and dry_run inventory behavior. It is slightly light on parameter-level details but sufficient to call the tool safely.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that transforms are absolute and apply to exact top-level components, and explains dry_run's purpose, but it does not describe the component identifier format, position/rotation units, or batch limits.

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 ('Apply absolute transforms') and resource ('top-level assembly components') with batch scope. It implicitly distinguishes from the singular sibling set_component_transform by emphasizing batch and top-level scope, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied for batch absolute positioning, and dry_run=true is identified for inventorying poses. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., set_component_transform for single-component edits).

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