Transform Node

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

The description reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations: it clarifies that values are absolute (not relative) and that any subset of dimensions can be provided, leaving others unchanged. Annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint) do not cover these specifics, so this adds valuable context without contradicting them.

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 sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It provides essential details without unnecessary filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a full input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It does not mention prerequisites or edge cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward transform tool. A minor gap is the lack of explicit node selection details, but these are covered in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that x/y/width/height are absolute and that any subset can be set, which the individual schema descriptions do not explicitly convey. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Move and/or resize' and identifies the resource 'a node' with the exact properties (x/y/width/height). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like node_set_fill or node_rename by focusing on geometry transformation.

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 description implies usage by specifying the task ('Move and/or resize') and method ('by setting absolute...') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling context hints at differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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