silhouette_transform_shape

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: scaling, flipping, and rotation are centred on the shape's bounding-box center, which is not derivable from structured fields. It omits what the call returns, what happens on an unknown shape_id, and how repeated calls compound.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the operation list is front-loaded before the geometric anchoring detail. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no return-value documentation, the description covers the geometric semantics well but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape and failure modes. The annotation set is thin (no permission or reversibility detail), so a sentence on outcomes would have closed the gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it maps dx_mm and dy_mm to translation, scale and rotation_deg to those transforms, flip_x and flip_y to optional mirroring, and identifies shape_id as the target lookup key. The 'design' parameter goes unexplained, and there is no note on whether scale is multiplicative, what a negative or zero scale does, or whether rotation is clockwise or counter-clockwise.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: move, scale, rotate, and mirror an existing shape by id. That clearly separates it from the sibling tools that add, remove, duplicate, or offset shapes. It stops short of naming any alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in the strongest sense.

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 by the verb list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as the design existing or the shape id being valid, and no exclusion telling the agent when to prefer silhouette_offset_shape or silhouette_duplicate_shape instead. The agent can infer scope but must discover preconditions elsewhere.

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