set_transform

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates this is an absolute, potentially overwriting operation and clarifies that only specified components are changed. It could go further by mentioning undoability or side effects, but the absolute-vs-relative distinction and partial-update behavior are valuable beyond what the schema provides.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The core purpose is stated first, and the key caveat and alternative routing follow immediately. No filler or redundant restatement exists.

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 four-parameter transform tool with a fully documented schema)Skip. It covers behavior, partial updates, and the relevant siblings, which is complete enough for correct invocation. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema, and any additional safety notes would be marginal for this straightforward mutation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail, including units and array shapes. The description reinforces that rotation is in degrees and that components are independent, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the 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 states a clear verb (Set), a specific resource (object), and the exact properties affected (absolute location, rotation in degrees, scale). It also contrasts with the relative transform siblings by emphasizing ABSOLUTE, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this from translate_object, rotate_object, and scale_object.

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 explicitly says to use translate/rotate/scale_object for relative changes, directly naming the alternative tools and the condition that selects them. It also explains that omitted components are left alone, which is critical usage guidance for partial updates.

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