Transform CAD model

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

The description adds some context beyond the annotations by specifying that translation is 'incremental' and rotation is 'Euler rotation in degrees', which clarifies the nature of the transform. However, it does not disclose the effect on the model, the role of expectedRevision, or any reversibility or side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It contains no redundant words and conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no in-schema parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits critical details about how parameters work together (e.g., can translation and rotation be combined?), the meaning of expectedRevision, and what the tool returns. This leaves an agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It vaguely maps 'translation', 'rotation', and 'scale' to three parameters and adds nuance with 'incremental' and 'Euler degrees', but it fails to explain the array structure, the interaction between parameters, or the purpose of expectedRevision, which is entirely undocumented.

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 uses the specific verb 'Apply' and identifies the resource 'CAD model', enumerating the exact types of transformations: incremental translation, Euler rotation in degrees, or scale. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_model or boolean_models, which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is used when a CAD model needs geometric modification, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as update_model or boolean_models, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is evident but not elaborated.

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