set_object_transform

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: only passed arguments change, parent '' unparents, rotate is in degrees, and only object-level nodes are valid. It stops short of describing return behavior or side effects beyond 'set,' which is a minor gap.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and uses a tight Args block that adds schema-missing meaning. The 'ctx' line is mild boilerplate, but overall every substantive line earns its place.

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?

All five parameters are covered with units, examples, and scope restrictions, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly. With no output schema and no annotations, the absence of return/error behavior leaves the behavioral contract slightly incomplete, but not enough to impair selection or invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with formats, examples, and sentinel values: node_path example '/obj/geo1', translate/scale vector component order, rotate degrees, and parent '' for unparenting.

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 in one call.' It also draws an explicit boundary with 'Object-level nodes under /obj only; SOP transforms are a Transform SOP, not this,' which prevents confusion with keyframe or SOP-transform tools.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance: only object-level nodes under /obj, and SOP transforms are explicitly routed elsewhere ('not this'). It also clarifies partial-update semantics ('Only the arguments you pass change'), so the agent knows omitted parameters are untouched.

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