reset_transform

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it explains that transforms are 'baked into the object' rather than merely adjusted, and it warns about parent-scaling skewing children. Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description aligns with that rather than contradicting it.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only valuable extra context: the parent-scaling warning. Repeating in Chinese and English is consistent with the bilingual schema and adds no real overhead.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description covers the essential behavior and a critical edge case. It could mention effects on pivot or world/local space, but the current description gives enough context for correct invocation in the main intended workflow.

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 every parameter is already described with defaults. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that position can optionally be reset and that scale reset is especially relevant before scaling a parent. This meets the baseline but does not substantially exceed it.

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 states a specific action and resource: reset an object's rotation and scale (or position) and bake the transform into the object. It clearly distinguishes this from generic transform operations and identifies what the tool does without relying on the name alone.

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 a concrete usage scenario: 'Scaling a parent skews children; call this before scaling.' This tells the agent when the tool is important. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the provided context is sufficient for a specialized transform-reset tool.

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