apply_transforms

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real side effects: shared meshes are made single-user first, children keep their world position, and mirrored scale is handled without flipped normals. This is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. It stops short of stating undo/permission implications or whether the operation is destructive to linked data.

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 core action and the non-obvious side effects. Dense and jargon-appropriate for a DCC tool; nothing is wasted, though the mode explanation could be slightly more structured.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone — and it covers the mutation's non-obvious effects well. It is still thin on the `names` argument and on whether the change is reversible, which for a transform-baking mutation is a meaningful 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `all` mode semantics (origin moves to world origin) and implies the scale/scale_rotation distinction, but the `names` parameter is never explained — the reader must infer it is the list of target meshes.

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 verb and resource — 'Bake the transform of meshes into their vertices' — and anchors it to a familiar operation ('as Ctrl+A does'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling transform_objects, which moves objects rather than collapsing their transforms into geometry.

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 Ctrl+A analogy gives a usable mental model, and the description clarifies what mode `all` does beyond the default. However, it never states when to choose this over transform_objects or set_origin, nor any prerequisite such as needing existing objects or a selection.

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