transform_entities

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the application order (scale -> rotate -> translate), units (mm, degrees) and defaults. It does not mention undo/rollback availability, which would fully round out the mutation profile.

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?

Three dense sentences with the operation list front-loaded, then selector semantics, then parameter details and order. No filler.

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?

No output schema, six parameters and a mutation tool, so the description carries significant burden and mostly meets it (units, defaults, ordering, selection fallback). Missing only return/undo expectations and a note that pivot defaults to the FIRST entity's center.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: translate is explicitly a relative offset, rotate is counterclockwise viewed from axis tip, and the ordering of the three operations clarifies how the interacting parameters compose.

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?

States a specific verb set and resource ('Move / rotate / scale entities') that no sibling duplicates. An agent can immediately tell this is the geometric transform tool versus deletion, selection, or creation tools.

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?

It clarifies that empty entity_ids falls back to the current selection, which is useful invocation context, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. select_entities first) or any prerequisites.

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