Set display transforms

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses two traits the agent cannot see otherwise: the mutation is undoable, and partial updates merge so unmentioned fields survive unless replace is true. This meaningfully softens and explains the destructiveHint=true/idempotentHint=true profile, though it does not say what is destroyed on replace or whether a preset load clobbers existing slots.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the action and its undoability are front-loaded, then the three input modes, then the merge rule. Every clause carries information the agent needs before calling.

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 7-parameter, zero-required, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the actionable points: which parameters go together and how omission behaves. Missing is the conflict rule when multiple modes are combined and any mention of display_get for verification, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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 71% and already documents scale/translation/rotation ranges, so the baseline is high; the description goes further by explaining the interaction between omitted fields and the replace flag, which the schema does not state. It omits any guidance on whether slot and display are mutually exclusive or what preset resolves against beyond the schema's folder note.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Sets display transforms") and then enumerates the three mutually exclusive targeting modes: a "display" map for several slots, "slot" plus rotation/translation/scale, or a "preset" file. An agent can tell it is a write/set operation on item model display, though it never names the sibling display_get as the read counterpart.

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?

Clear guidance on how to invoke it: choose one of three input shapes, and omitted fields merge rather than overwrite. It does not say when to prefer this over display_get or display_screenshot, nor what happens if arguments from two modes are supplied together, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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