set_actor_transform

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 a key behavior: fields left unset remain unchanged. However, it does not mention coordinate systems, units, success/failure behavior, or any side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 is a simple setter with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers its purpose, parameter behavior, and the partial-update nuance. It does not describe return values or validation, but for a straightforward mutation tool, the provided context is reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that location, rotation, and scale are optional and that leaving them unset (null) preserves existing values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, which only shows defaults and null types.

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 (move, rotate, scale) and target (the actor with a given label). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_actor_transform, which reads the transform, and delete_actor, which removes an actor.

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 provides clear context: it is used to modify an actor's transform, and unset fields are left unchanged. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool over read-only or other mutation tools.

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