serp_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists parameter syntax and does not reveal side effects such as whether 'move' mutates the original, whether 'copy' creates new objects, or the exact semantics of 'keep_original' in mirror. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact and structured as a syntax reference, with no verbose fluff. The multiline operation/params listing is efficient, though it could be slightly clearer with examples or expanded explanations for each operation.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. All five operations and their parameters are documented, making the description sufficient for most selection and invocation needs. However, the lack of behavioral context (side effects, safety) prevents a perfect score.

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?

The schema only provides a generic 'params' object with no internal structure. The description fully specifies the parameter layout for each operation, including defaults (e.g., axis defaults to Z) and parameter formats (offset, center, factor, plane_point). It also clarifies that targets are object names. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Transform objects (by name)' and enumerates five specific operations (move, copy, rotate, scale, mirror), distinguishing it from sibling tools like boolean, create, or measure. The verb+resource is clear and specific.

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 makes the tool's scope obvious (any transformation operation) and implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or scenarios where another tool would be preferred, so it falls short of a full 5.

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