Stage Object Set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: the edit is undoable, it emits transform_end, exact-name then case-insensitive matching is attempted, and trial mode has distinct persistence semantics. It does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or concurrency, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense single paragraph with many parentheticals and clauses about errors, replies, emissions, and trial behavior. The information is mostly useful, yet the structure could be cleaner and some phrasing, like 'the thing is edited for real,' is informal.

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-value explanation is not strictly required, but the description still covers the reply shape and behavioral side effects. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it is largely complete, though the unexplained required scene parameter is a notable gap.

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 explains location as Blender world position, offset as relative to location or current position, quaternion as [w, x, y, z], scale being ignored for aimed objects, and trial mode. It leaves the scene parameter unexplained and does not clarify array lengths or units for location/scale.

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 first sentence states a specific verb set (move, turn, scale) and resource (one object) and clarifies it is one undoable edit. An agent can distinguish this transform operation from sibling stage tools such as stage_object_select or stage_object_drop without opening the schema.

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 a concrete invocation constraint: at least one of location, offset, quaternion, or scale is required. It also explains the trial mode as a test move, giving clear context for when to use that parameter. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for object movement or undo, so no exclusion guidance is provided.

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