plasticity_scale

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds a real constraint - factors must be positive and the pivot is a world pivot - but says nothing about the required revision token, concurrency behavior, or what scaling does to dependent geometry.

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?

One compact sentence with the key qualifiers (world pivot, positive factors) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 destructive 4-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition omits the identity list semantics, the intent field, and the revision concurrency argument. An agent could not call this reliably without guessing at three of five parameters.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It loosely covers two of them (factors as positive XYZ, pivotMm as the world pivot) but leaves ids, intent, and the required revision string entirely unexplained.

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 (scale) and resource (bodies) plus the pivot semantics, which separates it from plasticity_scale_faces, plasticity_scale_instances, and plasticity_scale_reference_meshes. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over the similarly-named scale tools. The agent must infer applicability from the resource noun alone.

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