transform_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that without confirm=true the tool returns a PLAN, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the mutation is permanent with confirm=true, whether it is reversible, or any permission requirements.

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 very concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides useful information. The detail about rotation and the plan behavior is essential and not redundant.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 11 parameters and no annotations. The description fails to explain key aspects like how to select entities (handles vs type/block/layer), what the PLAN contains, or the exact effect of confirm=true. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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%, and the description only clarifies the rotation parameter ('rotation en grados float, respecto de (base_x, base_y)'). It does not explain the semantics of dx/dy, scale, type/block/layer filters, handles, or confirm, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Mueve, rota y/o escala entidades existentes' (moves, rotates, and/or scales existing entities). This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_entities or copy_entities, which target different operations.

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 implies usage: without confirm=true it returns a PLAN, so the tool can be used for previewing changes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this over transform-related siblings, leaving usage mostly implied.

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