vw2d_transform

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false; the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: 'copy=True keeps the originals' and 'One undo step', which tells the agent the operation is reversible in a single step. It doesn't say what happens when required params for a chosen operation are omitted (a likely error path).

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then compact per-operation lines with zero filler. The telegraphic style ('scale: center + sx (+ sy)') is dense to the point of needing careful parsing, but every clause carries 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?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description supplies the operational contract an agent needs to form a valid call. Remaining gaps are 'unit' semantics and what is returned when copy=True (new object ids vs. originals).

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 0%, so the description carries the whole burden and largely delivers: it maps operation to parameters (dx/dy or from_point+to_point for move, center+angle in degrees ccw for rotate, axis as [[x1,y1],[x2,y2]] for mirror, center+sx(+sy) for scale). Only 'unit' is left unexplained, which is a small residual gap given the near-total coverage of 11 of 13 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?

Opens with a specific verb set and resource: 'Move, rotate, mirror or scale objects', with the copy flag's effect stated inline. An agent can immediately tell this is the geometric-modification tool and distinguish it from vw2d_offset (offsetting) or vw2d_edit (general edits).

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance per operation, including the 'from_point -> to_point (exact difference, e.g. a corner onto another object's corner)' idiom that tells the agent when to prefer it over dx/dy. It does not name a sibling alternative or state exclusions (e.g. vs. vw2d_offset or vw2d_edit), which keeps it below a 5.

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