transform_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the transform order, axis order for rotation, pivot default, group behavior, shear caveat, and that every object is listed after the change. It does not state whether the mutation is reversible or what happens on partial failure, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with purpose and order, then packs parameter and behavioral details efficiently. It is longer than a single sentence but nearly every clause adds useful context; the shear warning and alternative routing are not filler.

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 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most operational context: order, pivot default, group behavior, shear caveat, return listing, and sibling alternatives. The main remaining gap is the exact meaning of the move parameter and any reversibility details.

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 rotate_deg, scale, and pivot in useful detail, but move is only implied by the word 'move' and names is undocumented beyond its obvious meaning. This partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves move semantics underspecified.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb set (move, turn, scale) and resource (objects together with their children), making the tool's action immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting numeric transforms with attach and move_to_contact.

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 description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it when you know the numbers'. It also names alternatives and the condition for choosing them: 'to place a part against another use attach or move_to_contact'. This leaves little inference required.

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