Transform instances

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

Annotations provide only a title and no readOnly/destructive hints, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that a transform is applied, but it does not disclose whether the operation is relative or absolute by default, whether it modifies existing instance positions destructively, or what response/return value is expected.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the transform format, the unit, and the target. Every word contributes meaning and there is no redundant 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?

For a mutating tool with six parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, one sentence is not enough to fully contextualize the call. It omits when/why to transform instances versus other operations, the semantics of the optional 'absolute' flag, and what outcome or response the agent should expect.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little beyond the schema. The mention of 'metres' and 'row-major' is useful but largely restates the schema's own transform matrix description.

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 ('Apply'), a precise resource ('4x4 row-major transform'), and the target ('occurrence paths'). This clearly differentiates the tool from instance insertion/deletion siblings like onshape_insert_instance and onshape_delete_instance.

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 alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. Given the large sibling list full of modeling and assembly operations, an agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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