scale_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key distinction between multiplying current scale via x/y/z and setting absolute scale via the scale parameter, which is useful. However, it omits prerequisites such as object existence, side effects on children or origin, and any return or error behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation. The compact args list conveys every necessary parameter detail without repeating schema titles or adding 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?

For a simple two-mode transform tool with no output schema, the essential invocation details are all present. It does not mention return values, errors, or the need for an existing object, but nothing suggests the agent would be unable to invoke the tool correctly based on this description.

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 supply all parameter meaning, and it does. It explains name, x/y/z as scale factors with 1.0 meaning no change, the precedence relationship between x/y/z and scale, and the expected [sx, sy, sz] format for absolute scale.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Scale an object') and clearly distinguishes two modes: multiplicative factors versus absolute scale. It is clear enough to separate from move_object and rotate_object, though it does not explicitly address the overlap with set_object_transform.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings like set_object_transform or apply_transform. The only usage-related note ('Used when scale is not given') concerns parameter precedence, not tool selection.

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