object_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does add some useful context with 'Real geometry, headless' — indicating true geometric changes rather than style-level effects. However, it omits side-effect information such as whether the input file is preserved, whether operations are reversible, and what happens on failure.

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 exceptionally short and front-loaded, with no filler words. Both sentences earn their place: the first states the operation set and the second adds the key behavioral qualifiers.

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 schema covers parameter semantics and selection precedence, but the description does not provide the valid values for 'kind' despite the schema telling the agent to see the tool summary. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent must infer usage details from the sentence alone, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with six parameters.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter such as object_ids, select_all, and output_path. The description's verb list loosely suggests possible 'kind' values but does not enumerate them or clarify the ambiguous 'value' parameter, so it adds little 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 names concrete geometric operations ('Move, scale, rotate, grow and flip objects') applied to a clear resource ('objects'), so an agent can tell this is a transform tool. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like object_arrange or path_geometry, and 'grow' is imprecise, but it is far from tautological.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as object_style, object_clone, object_arrange, or path_geometry. The phrase 'headless' hints at scripted use, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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