blender_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists operation names without explaining behavioral traits like permissible object types, effect of relative parameter, whether operations are destructive, or what output is returned. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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 structured with an initial purpose sentence followed by a bullet list of operations. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the list could be condensed to save vertical space without losing information.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description omits critical contextual details such as which parameters apply to which operations, required scene state, error handling, and return value format. The output schema is not referenced to supplement completeness.

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 low (31%), and the description adds limited semantic value: it specifies that set_rotation uses degrees and differentiates between absolute and relative operations. However, most parameters (x,y,z, rotation_x, etc.) remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their interplay with each operation unclear.

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 clearly states 'Transform objects in 3D space' and lists eight specific operations, providing a precise verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like blender_mesh or blender_animation by focusing solely on transformation operations.

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 lists operations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., blender_mesh for vertex-level changes). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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