Transform

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'The same object is moved — NO new handle is created' and 'discarding the object's prior placement' for absolute mode. It also discloses the rotation pivot behavior ('about the object's local origin') and the return value shape. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameter details, then behavioral caveats, then return value. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, units, the destructive nature, the pivot behavior, and the return value. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 carries the full burden. It explains every parameter: handle, translate, rotate_axis, angle, and relative, including units (mm, degrees), defaults, and the meaning of relative=True/False. It also clarifies that rotate_axis need not be unit length, which is not in 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 states a specific verb ('Move and/or rotate') and resource ('an existing object in place'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the alternative 'hand-poking an object's Placement via set_property.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from siblings like set_property and scale_shape.

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 explicitly says this is a 'first-class replacement for hand-poking an object's Placement via set_property,' giving a clear when-to-use signal. It also explains the relative vs absolute behavior, which tells the agent when to use relative=True versus False. The sibling list includes set_property, and the description directly contrasts with it.

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