transform_dupe

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it saves a new file unless explicitly overwriting, and it limits supported inputs to single-body prop_physics with Weld/NoCollide. It could say more about overwrite consequences or failure modes, but it adds real value beyond annotations.

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 three short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The constraint and save-behavior details are appropriately placed afterward.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, input constraints, and default write behavior, but with six parameters at 0% schema coverage, it is not complete enough about source, destination, revision, or transform semantics.

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 compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only loosely maps to yaw/offset via 'rotate' and 'translate,' and mentions overwrite behavior, but source, destination, and revision are unexplained, leaving most parameter semantics opaque.

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 clearly states the operation: rotating prop builds around a copy origin and translating local positions. It adds a key constraint (single-body prop_physics with Weld/NoCollide only), which helps distinguish it from generic file-writing siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a meaningful applicability constraint ('Supports single-body prop_physics with Weld/NoCollide only') and notes default save behavior. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings like write_dupe or create_build, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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