set_scene_item_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'set' which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the transform is fully replaced or partially merged, error conditions, or any prerequisites like the item needing to exist in the scene. This is a gap for a setter tool.

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 concise: a single clear sentence followed by a structured Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the input schema but is formatted in a readable way. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has a nested transform object and three required parameters, and no output schema. The description enumerates the transform fields but does not explain units (e.g., rotation degrees), whether partial transforms are allowed, or what happens when invalid values are provided. It is adequate but leaves several gaps for safe usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args block adds meaning to scene_name and scene_item_id, and critically enumerates the valid keys inside the 'transform' object (positionX/positionY, rotation, scaleX/scaleY, alignment, boundsType, cropLeft, etc.), which the schema leaves as an unstructured object. This provides significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('a scene item's position/scale/rotation/crop'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_scene_item_transform or set_scene_item_enabled by naming the exact transform properties.

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 implies usage: it is for modifying a scene item's transform. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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