transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses operation ordering, the default rotation axis (world Z) and center (origin), units (mm, degrees), and the side effect that the original object is moved unless copy_as is supplied. It omits error/failure behavior when the named object doesn't exist.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb-and-skill summary before the ordering rule and the copy_as nuance. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical line breaks add slight noise.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the geometric semantics well and an output schema handles return values. It is still thin on identifying what doc/name must reference and what happens on an invalid object, which an agent needs before calling.

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. It explains copy_as, rotation_deg's unit, and the defaults for rotation_axis and rotation_center, but leaves doc, name, translate, and the expected vector formats (3-element arrays) undocumented.

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?

States a specific compound operation on a named resource and pins down the important detail that rotation is applied before translation, which an agent could otherwise get wrong. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like mirror or linear_pattern, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The copy_as sentence gives one concrete usage hint ('use for repeated parts'), which implies when to create a duplicate versus move in place. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus mirror, linear_pattern, or set_properties, so guidance remains implied.

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