apply_transform

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

The description discloses the main behavioral trait: transforms are applied to mesh data and reset to identity. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden, but it omits details such as irreversibility (except undo), object type requirements, or the effect of selectively disabling parameters. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately explains the outcome, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and sparse parameter documentation. The description provides the core function but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must be a mesh, object mode required), edge cases (e.g., effect on children), or the nature of the output. Given the availability of an output schema, the return format is covered, but the operational context remains incomplete.

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 the description does not explain the parameters (name, scale, location, rotation). While the boolean names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify that these flags control which transforms are applied or how defaults behave, leaving the agent to infer critical details.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Apply (freeze)') and resource ('the object's transforms to mesh data'). It also explains the result ('Resets the applied transforms to identity'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_transform or set_origin.

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?

The phrase 'Apply (freeze)' implies the use case of making transforms permanent before further editing, and 'Resets the applied transforms to identity' clarifies the outcome. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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