set_actor_transform

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the load. It usefully discloses the target context (editor or PIE world) and the side effect of focus_camera (frames the actor), but says nothing about reversibility, failure when an actor cannot be resolved, or undo behavior.

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 summary plus a tidy Args block; every line earns its place and there is no filler. Structure is appropriate for an args-heavy tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and all params are covered. However, with no annotations and a mutation tool, the description omits failure/permission/reversibility behavior, leaving an agent without key operational context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does: actor accepts a label/object name/full path, location is world [x,y,z], rotation is [pitch,yaw,roll] in degrees, and focus_camera frames the actor. All four parameters gain meaning beyond their bare titles.

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 (move/rotate) and resource (actor) with scope ('current editor or PIE world'). It distinguishes editor vs PIE targeting, but does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as set_view_target or possess_pawn.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the actor arg points back to find_actor ('full path returned by find_actor'), suggesting the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not guidance.

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