scale_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic scaling action and scope but does not mention whether the operation modifies entities in place, whether it is reversible via undo, whether it affects layers or non-drawing objects, or any side effects. Given that this tool mutates the entire drawing, the absence of such context is a notable gap.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant information. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be slightly expanded with essential parameter clarifications without much bloat, so it does not earn a perfect 5.

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 the simple operation of scaling all entities, the description covers the main purpose and scope. However, it lacks critical context such as parameter semantics, usage guidance, and any warnings about the impact of scaling everything. Even though an output schema exists, the missing parameter and behavioral details mean the description is only minimally viable for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does map base_x/base_y to 'base point' and factor to 'factor' in a loose sense, but it fails to explain the coordinate system, units, factor constraints (e.g., must be positive), or how these values affect the scaling operation. The description adds minimal value over the raw parameter names and does not fully compensate for the lack of 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 'Scale' and explicitly states it affects ALL entities from a base point by factor. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scale_entity (which would target a single entity) and rotate_all (which rotates instead of scales). The scope and operation are unambiguous.

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 word 'ALL' implies the tool is for scaling every entity in the drawing, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., scale_entity) or mention any exclusions, dependencies, or prerequisites. The guidance is essentially implied by the tool's name rather than explicitly stated.

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