plasticity_scale_reference_meshes

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

With annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds real context: the operation runs in one Plasticity history step and scaling does not make the source dimensionally authoritative, plus a directive to re-read returned mesh bounds. It never spells out exactly what is mutated or that the change is in place, but it goes beyond the annotation surface.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its mechanism, followed by the caution. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the pivot/factor model, the single history step, and a return-value caution. It omits permission requirements and the semantics of ids/revision, leaving a minor gap.

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 carries the burden, and it only partially compensates: it clarifies pivotMm (world-space) and factors (positive XYZ), but ids, intent, and revision are left completely undocumented. Partial coverage of 2 of 5 params earns a baseline 3.

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) applied to a specific resource (current approximate STL/OBJ reference meshes) and even the mechanism (around an explicit world-space pivot with positive XYZ factors in one history step). This clearly separates it from the generic plasticity_scale and from plasticity_move_reference_meshes/rotate_reference_meshes without needing the schema.

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 resource it targets, but the description never states when to prefer it over sibling operations such as plasticity_move_reference_meshes, plasticity_rotate_reference_meshes, or the generic plasticity_scale. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are given.

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