set_object_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. It does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait the schema cannot express: partial/merge semantics ('Only the arguments you pass change'), which prevents an agent from assuming omitted fields are reset. However it says nothing about whether a live Houdini session is required, whether the change is undoable, or what is returned on success.

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 capability and scope caveat before the argument list, and every line earns its place except 'ctx: MCP context.', which is boilerplate. The triple format naming is dense but readable.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the semantics that structured fields lack: merge behavior, degrees, unparent sentinel, and node scope. The main omission is any statement about environment prerequisites or error/return behavior.

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% and all five parameters are titled only, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives the component order for translate/rotate/scale, states rotate is in degrees, and specifies that parent='' unparents. Defaults without an explicit 'null means unchanged' statement are the only gap.

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 and resource ('Set an object's translate, rotate, scale and/or parent') and explicitly carves out the boundary against SOP transforms, which is the nearest conceptual sibling. An agent can distinguish it from set_parameter, move_node, and the Transform SOP 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule ('Object-level nodes under /obj only; SOP transforms are a Transform SOP, not this') and names the alternative for the excluded case. It does not cover when to prefer set_parameter over this tool, but the scope constraint is explicit and actionable.

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