blender_transform

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

With annotations all false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by listing operations like apply_transform and reset_transform, which hint at mesh mutation and identity resets. However, it does not elaborate on consequences such as whether transforms are destructive or reversible, or how space and relative affect behavior. Still, it goes beyond annotations by exposing the operation set.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview followed by a bulletized list of operations. Every bullet is short and informative. No fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description is incomplete given the complexity (13 parameters, 8 operations, no enums). It doesn't mention that object_names is required, how rotation angles are specified (degrees vs radians for operations other than set_rotation), or how the space parameter influences coordinates. It also doesn't explain the behavior of relative or the effect of apply_transform. This would leave an agent uncertain about correct invocation.

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 low (31%), so the description must compensate. The operation list gives semantic meaning to the operation parameter, but it does not explain how x, y, z, rotation_x, rotation_y, rotation_z, scale_x, scale_y, scale_z map to different operations. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description doesn't clarify the interplay, leaving ambiguity.

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 starts with 'Transform objects in 3D space' which clearly states the resource and action. It lists eight specific operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like blender_selection or blender_scene. The verb 'transform' is specific and the scope is unambiguous.

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 enumerating operations that can be performed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, and it doesn't guide the agent on choosing between set_location vs translate or when to use apply_transform. The context is clear enough but guidance is implicit.

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