set_transform

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

The description only says 'Set' and mentions the fields, adding little beyond the schema. The annotation provides idempotentHint, but the description does not disclose side effects, behavior for unset fields, coordinate space, or error handling. With only the idempotent hint annotation, the description misses the chance to clarify that it modifies the object in place and leaves unspecified fields unchanged.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key components. It is efficient with no fluff, though it could be slightly richer without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of parameter descriptions, the existence of many sibling tools, and the need to correctly specify transforms, this description is incomplete. It does not cover array formats, coordinate systems, or when to choose this over 'apply_transform' or 'set_pose_bone_transform'. An operating agent would likely need to inspect schema further or guess at conventions.

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 0% for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds that rotation is in radians, but it does not explain the expected array structure (e.g., [x, y, z] for location/scale, or whether rotation is Euler angles or axis-angle). The semantics of name, scale, and location are barely elaborated, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('an object's location, rotation, and/or scale'), with a specific unit for rotation (radians). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'apply_transform' or 'set_pose_bone_transform'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'apply_transform' for applying a transform or 'set_pose_bone_transform' for armatures. There is no mention of prerequisites, object types, or scenarios that favor this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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