object.transform

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, reversibility, or what the operation modifies. 'Risk: standard' is vague and not informative.

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 short but not concise; it is under-specified. It spends characters on risk/maturity labels and a generic requirement note while omitting essential operational information.

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?

This is a transform operation with 10 parameters, an output schema, and many related tools. The description fails to explain the operation's purpose, target selection, coordinate systems, or how it relates to object creation and manipulation. Completely inadequate.

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 60% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the meaning of parameters like name, objectId, space, and how location/rotation/scale interact. It does none of this. The schema's 'Three finite numbers; rotation uses radians' is copied verbatim to scale and location, which is misleading.

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 only restates the command name 'object.transform' and adds risk/maturity/requirements boilerplate. It never states that the tool moves, scales, or rotates an object, so an agent cannot tell what it actually does.

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 on when to use this tool versus any sibling. There is no mention of alternatives like blender_object_apply_transform or the need to select an object first. The 'Requirements' line is about authorization, not usage context.

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