cst_transform_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about whether the transform mutates the solid in place or creates a copy, what the axis/plane defaults mean physically, how repetitions interacts with multiple_objects, or any prerequisites. For a 12-parameter mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than concise given the parameter surface it must cover.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 12 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly. It covers the purpose but not the mechanics.

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 description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The enumerated operations loosely hint at which parameters are relevant, but axis, angle, plane, scale, center, vector, repetitions, group_objects and multiple_objects are left entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Transform a solid') and enumerates the four supported operations, so an agent can immediately tell this is a geometric-transformation tool. It does not name or contrast with nearby siblings such as cst_move_solid_to_component_tool or cst_boolean_tool, so the differentiation is only implied by the name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor which parameter combinations correspond to which operation. The agent must infer that 'translate' pairs with vector, 'rotate' with axis/angle, 'mirror' with plane, etc.

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