set_transform

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true is not contradicted by the description. The description adds useful detail (rotation in radians, and/or indicates partial updates) but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing transform values or error behavior for non-existent objects.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb and target, and the 'and/or' phrase efficiently conveys flexibility.

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 simple setter with idempotentHint annotation, the description covers the core function adequately. However, missing usage guidelines and partial parameter semantics leave some gaps. The tool's simplicity and available annotation prevent a lower score.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names location, rotation, and scale and specifies radians for rotation, but does not explain the vector format, array order, or how null parameters are interpreted. The required 'name' parameter is not described at all.

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 what the tool does: setting an object's location, rotation (in radians), and/or scale. It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (object's transform properties), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_transform or set_pose_bone_transform.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the operation without context, prerequisites, or examples of when this is the appropriate choice over other transform-related tools.

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