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 and does substantial work: same object is mutated (no new handle), rotation pivots about the object's local origin, relative defaults to incremental composition, and absolute mode discards prior placement. It omits failure modes (invalid handle, no-Placement objects) and any concurrency/transaction expectations, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its sibling contrast, then a clean per-parameter block with defaults, then the two behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries information; nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape ({handle, name, placement}) with units, and covers mutation semantics and pivot behavior. For a 5-parameter, unannotated mutation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: units for translate (mm), rotate_axis semantics (need not be unit length, default Z), angle in DEGREES with default 0, handle scope ('any object with a Placement: primitive, body, feature'), and relative's true/false meaning are all spelled out. This is fully beyond what the bare schema conveys.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move and/or rotate an existing object in place') and explicitly positions itself against a sibling: 'first-class replacement for hand-poking an object's Placement via set_property.' An agent can distinguish it from set_property and scale_shape/copy_shape without opening any schema.

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 clearly names the alternative it supersedes (set_property on Placement) and explains the incremental-vs-absolute choice via the relative flag's default, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g. when to prefer set_property instead, or prerequisites like the object needing an existing Placement).

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