wb_scale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two key behaviors: the operation is a dry-run by default and only mutates when write=true, and by default it touches only existing scale fields rather than adding new ones. It omits permission requirements, whether writes are reversible/undoable, and what a dry-run returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the scope default, then the safety default. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-critical fact (dry-run) is easy to find.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the safety model but not the parameter model. An agent still cannot determine how uniform relates to per-axis scaling or what the dry-run response contains.

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 0% for 8 parameters, so the description must compensate; it does explain 'write' and implicitly explains 'create_scale' via 'existing scale fields only by default.' However, it adds nothing about how x/y/z interact with 'uniform', or what file/path identify, leaving the most ambiguous parameters undocumented.

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: 'Scale an object/group hierarchy.' An agent can tell this apart from wb_rotate or wb_move, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling wb_live_scale, which may apply to live sessions rather than files.

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 dry-run-unless-write=true rule implicitly tells the agent it can preview safely, which is useful usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. wb_live_scale or the array/scatter placement tools that also produce scaled objects.

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