transform_object

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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only and destructive. The description adds an important behavioral warning that scaling a parent will skew its children and recommends reset_transform first, which goes beyond the schema. This is valuable but does not detail other side effects like overwriting absolute values or transformation pivot behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action and includes the critical warning in bold. The bilingual duplication (Chinese and English) adds length but is likely intentional for the tool's audience; it remains reasonably concise.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios, selection fallback, and the important parent-scaling caveat. It omits potential error handling or return value details, but that is acceptable for a transformation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including enums and units. The description repeats the mode/space/rotationType choices but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool moves/rotates/scales objects and enumerates supported modes (absolute/relative, world/local, euler/axis-angle). It specifies the selection fallback when objects is omitted. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling transform-like tools like align_objects or mirror_object, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 provides clear context: the tool is the general move/rotate/scale operation, and it notes how to target the current selection by omitting objects. It also includes a conditional prerequisite (reset_transform before scaling a parent). It does not mention alternative tools for alignment/mirroring or state when not to use this tool, so no exclusions are given.

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