Transform a figure

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

Annotations already disclose this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully adds that angles are degrees and anticlockwise and that multiple uids move together, but says nothing about whether changes apply across one keyframe vs the timeline, or persistence/undo implications, which matter for a 13-param mutator.

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?

Three tight sentences: the capability list leads, then a units/orientation caveat, then the multi-figure behaviour. No filler and the most surprising detail (multi-select grouping) is not buried.

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?

With no output schema, an agent gets no indication of what the tool returns or how success/failure is reported after a mutation. The schema is fully described, which covers parameters, but the behavioural envelope of a 13-param, non-idempotent transform is only partly addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying rotation direction (anticlockwise) and the co-movement semantics of 'uids'. It does not, however, add anything on frame vs frames or on how 'order' interacts with layers.

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 family (move, rotate, scale, flip, align, centre, reorder) on a specific resource (a figure), so it is clearly distinct from figure_add, figure_delete, and figure_duplicate in the sibling list. An agent knows exactly what class of operation this is.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated actions, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead for…' routing. Note that keyframe_edit, pose_set, and figure_describe exist as siblings and the description never states the boundary between transforming geometry and editing animation or poses.

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