plasticity_scale_instances

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the source-geometry link is preserved — which is useful. It does not disclose the required optimistic-concurrency revision handling, permission needs, or what happens on a stale revision.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and every clause (pivot, factors, link preservation) carries information.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description omits too much: what revision expects, whether ids must be linked instances, whether factors may be non-uniform, and failure behavior. It is adequate only for the geometry semantics it does cover.

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 carries the full burden. It adds real semantics for two of them ('world-space pivot' and 'positive XYZ factors' — a constraint the schema does not encode), but leaves ids, revision, and intent entirely unexplained, including the required revision string.

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), a precise resource (native linked instances), and the operation's scope (world-space pivot, positive XYZ factors). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling plasticity_scale (generic) and plasticity_scale_reference_meshes, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the narrow scope ('native linked instances') — an agent can infer this applies only to linked instances rather than bodies or reference meshes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of sibling tools like plasticity_realize_instances or plasticity_scale that an agent might otherwise pick.

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