set_dimensions_mm

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description says 'scale object' which implies mutation. However, the description adds no extra context about side effects (e.g., overwriting existing dimensions, affecting object children, or being non-reversible). It relies entirely on the annotation without elaborating, so it adds minimal value beyond structured data.

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 short sentence, which is highly concise and easy to read. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and destructive behavior, so the brevity reflects incompleteness rather than efficient information density.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no schema descriptions, a destructive hint, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, behavior on non-existent objects, units handling, or any preconditions. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's scope from 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'dimensi milimeter' which simply reiterates the unit from parameter names (width_mm, height_mm, depth_mm). It does not clarify the meaning of object_name, axis mapping, or whether values are absolute or relative. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 ('skala' / scale) and names the resource (object) and exact dimensions (milimeter presisi). This clearly identifies the tool's function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transform_object or batch_set_scale, which also modify object scale.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, whether it's for design-time scaling, or how it relates to other scale/transform tools. The agent is left without context for selection.

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