ap_object_set_transform

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it warns that rotation is in degrees, states conversion to quaternion occurs, says omitted components are left alone, and notes the world is Z-up. It doesn't mention whether the operation is destructive or requires any state, but for a transform setter the core behavioral traits are disclosed. The 'rebuild its matrix' note gives useful insight into internal effect.

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 sentences, no filler. The most important information (what it does, degrees, omitted-left-alone, Z-up) is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place. The structure leads with the verb and resource, then flags the critical unit/conversion detail, then the omission behavior, then the coordinate-space note.

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 transform setter with 1 required param and 3 optional arrays, the description covers the core usage context. It tells you the coordinate system, the rotation convention, and the omission behavior. It doesn't discuss what the return value is, but there is no output schema and it's not essential for invoking a transform setter. It doesn't mention whether the object must exist, but the parameter description for name plus the tool family context makes that obvious. A half-point deduction for lacking any note about error cases or prerequisites.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are mostly self-explanatory. The description adds value to rotation_euler_degrees by specifying degrees and conversion, and clarifies semantics of omitted arrays. However, scale and location parameter meanings ('World location', 'Scale') are already in the schema, so the description doesn't add much beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a clear verb-object pair ('Set an object's location, rotation and/or scale, then rebuild its matrix'), names the specific resource (an object's transform), and includes a distinctive detail that differentiates from siblings like ap_object_set_visible and ap_get_object: rotation is provided as XYZ Euler degrees and converted internally. It also clarifies omissions are left alone, which disambiguates it from a tool that might reset all components.

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 implicitly tells when to use it: when you need to set transform components of an object, leave unspecified components untouched, and want the matrix rebuilt. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set is large and mostly about other concerns (paint, materials, nodes, files), so the context is clear enough. Losing a point because there is no explicit exclusion or alternative pointer.

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