Set Object Transform

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the safety and behavior burden. It clearly signals mutation, discloses that unspecified fields retain their current values, and explains that matrix is mutually exclusive with decomposed fields plus the space default. It doesn't address return values or failure modes, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 dense sentences front-load the core purpose and then unpack the two modes. Every sentence carries distinct useful information, and none of the schema's detail is needlessly repeated.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all invocation-relevant choices: parameter combinations, partial update semantics, matrix exclusivity, space behavior, and defaults. The rich input schema supplies the remaining structural constraints, so nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, but the schema entries are minimal; the description adds real meaning: HPB radians, 4x3 row order, mutual exclusivity, and the local/global default. This exceeds the baseline 3 expected from full schema coverage.

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 and resource — 'Write an object's transform' — and immediately distinguishes the two operating modes: partial patch via pos/rot/scale versus full replacement via matrix. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among write-oriented siblings like set_params and set_keyframe.

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 provides clear decision guidance on when to use patch fields versus a matrix, and when to choose local versus global space, including the underlying SetMl/SetMg mapping. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as sample_transform or set_params, but the tool-specific usage context is well covered.

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