set_transform_gizmo

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-destructive and idempotent, and the description avoids contradiction. It adds useful behavioral detail: only supplied fields are modified and the tool returns the resulting mode/space, which tells the agent the observable effect and response shape without an output schema.

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 with no filler: the core action and accepted values come first, the partial-update contract and return value are second, and the exclusion/alternative is last. Every sentence carries information needed to call the tool safely.

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 simple, fully-optional-parameter setter with rich schema descriptions, the description covers the action, the exact settings, the partial-update behavior, the return value, and the key alternative. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 three parameters are already described with enums and types. The description adds value by restating the semantic groups (mode, coordinate space, snapping) and, more importantly, by stating the partial-update behavior that governs how the optional parameters should be passed.

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 'Set the viewport transform gizmo', naming a specific verb and resource, then enumerates exactly what can be controlled: mode, coordinate space, and snapping. It also distinguishes itself from the nearby transform-modification tools by warning that it does not actually move/rotate/scale entities, which is the key sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly states when not to use the tool ('to actually move/rotate/scale an entity') and names the alternative ('use modify_entities on its transform'). It also clarifies that only provided fields change, so callers know they can issue partial updates without respecifying all settings.

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