mdpa_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important non-obvious behavior: defaults ('axis ... default z, through origin') and the re-ordering of connectivity including quadratic mid-edge and face nodes so cells keep a positive measure. It still omits whether the transform is applied in place or written to `output`, and what `overwrite` does, so it is strong but not complete.

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 per-operation enumeration is front-loaded and information-dense; nearly every clause adds semantics an agent needs. Minor cost is that it reads as one long sentence rather than a structured list, but there is little waste.

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 described. But for a 13-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should also cover overwrite/output semantics and the selector format; those omissions leave the agent unsure of the write behavior.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does map the operation-specific parameters: translate→vector, rotate→angle/axis, scale→factors, mirror→point/normal, plus the default origin/axis. However path, output, overwrite, node_ids and the shape of selector remain unexplained, leaving a substantial gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Transform node coordinates') and defines the scope ('all nodes unless node_ids/selector is given'), so the agent knows exactly what is affected. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling mdpa_move_nodes, leaving overlap to be inferred.

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?

It states the applicability condition for node selection and enumerates the four valid operations with their required inputs, which implicitly guides usage. But it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as mdpa_move_nodes, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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