transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: deterministic step ordering and that reset restores orientation/size but keeps position. It omits whether changes are undoable, whether they persist to the job or only the session, and whether downstream preview/slice state is invalidated.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and each arg line earns its place with units or examples rather than restating the field name. The docstring 'Args:' formatting is a little verbose for a tool description but wastes no sentences.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers every argument and the interaction between them; the existing output schema relieves it of explaining return values. It stops short of stating preconditions (objects must be loaded/selected) and side effects on slicing.

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, and it documents all seven parameters: accepted id/name forms plus the ["all"] shorthand, degree axes with concrete examples, scalar vs per-axis scale, mm units for move_to/move_by, and reset semantics. This adds meaning well beyond the bare titles in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb list (rotate, scale, lay flat, move) applied to a named resource (objects), which is far more precise than the bare name 'transform'. It is distinguishable from siblings like copy_objects, remove_objects and arrange, though the overlap with move_to_bed is left for the reader to infer.

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 stated execution order (reset, scale, rotate, lay_flat, move) is genuinely useful guidance for combining steps in one call. However, it never says when to use this tool instead of move_to_bed or arrange, nor whether a preview/re-slice is required afterwards — usage is implied rather than stated.

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