batch_set_scale

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation risk. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint: it affects all objects of a specified type, not individually selected ones. However, it does not disclose whether existing scale values are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, immediately conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a top score for structure.

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 batch mutation tool with destructive potential, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), does not describe what happens if the types list is empty or invalid, and lacks information about whether the scale is absolute or relative. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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. It mentions 'scale' and 'type' which map to the parameter names, but it does not explain that 'scale' is an array of three numbers (x,y,z) or that 'types' is an array of strings like MESH and CURVE. The defaults in the schema carry some meaning but are not explicitly described.

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 'Atur skala semua objek dengan tipe tertentu' clearly states a specific action: setting the scale of all objects matching a given type. It uses a specific verb ('set') and resource (scale of all objects by type), distinguishing it from sibling tools like batch_set_location or transform_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool (e.g., transform_object for single-object scaling) would be more appropriate. Usage is only implicitly inferred from the action itself.

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