transform_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states that the transform is relative, specifies unit handling (bare numbers=mm, unit strings accepted), states rotations are in degrees, and reveals the failure mode on fixed/grounded instances. This gives the agent critical behavior without needing extra metadata.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action, encode key unit rules, and end with a practical failure warning. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant 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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent most needs: the relative nature, unit conventions, degree units, and the fixed/grounded failure case. It stops just short of naming the absolute-position sibling as the alternative for fixed instances, which would fully complete the selection guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters, including the same unit-string semantics in translateX/Y/Z and degrees for rotations. The description summarizes these semantics but adds no new information 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: apply a relative transform to an assembly instance. The capitalized RELATIVE distinguishes it from absolute positioning tools like set_instance_position, and the unit and failure notes further characterize what this tool is for.

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?

It explicitly warns against fixed/grounded instances and routes the agent to get_assembly_positions to check the 'fixed' flag first, which is clear when-not-to-use and alternative guidance. It does not explicitly name set_instance_position for absolute transforms, but the relative-vs-absolute distinction is clear from the first sentence.

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