asset.transform

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable transparency by explicitly stating 'Creates new GLB, BLEND, and FBX files without changing the input.' This clarifies the non-destructive write behavior and output format. However, it does not mention details like whether existing output files are overwritten or any permission requirements, though annotations lower the bar for this dimension.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by essential constraints and output behavior. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's scope.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, this description covers the critical aspects: what it does, key input constraints, and output behavior. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., what happens if target not found), but given the output schema exists and annotations are present, it is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly in most scenarios.

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 description coverage, the description compensates well by clarifying that each supplied vector must be exactly three finite numbers (covering location, rotation_degrees, scale) and that target is 'all' or an exact object name. It also specifies rotation is in degrees. It does not describe input_path and output_directory, but these are self-explanatory from their names. The description adds meaningful semantics for the most ambiguous parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set explicit location, Euler rotation in degrees, and/or scale on target objects.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset.apply_material or asset.add_modifier, which target different aspects. The mention of creating new GLB, BLEND, and FBX files further clarifies its purpose, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative to compare against.

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 gives some usage context by explaining that 'target' can be 'all' or an exact object name, and that it creates new files without modifying input. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions that would make it the preferred choice. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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