Change the print scale of a plan to a specified value, with warnings when the plan no longer fits or text becomes too small to read.
Change the print scale ("1:50", "1:100"...). The result warns if the plan no longer fits or if the dimensions/texts are too small to read at that scale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| scale | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the result warns about plan fit and text legibility, which is useful. However, it does not state side effects, scope of change (page vs document), or whether the operation is reversible.
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 short, front-loaded with the action, and includes only relevant details: scale value formats and the warning behavior. Every clause adds value.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple setter: it explains the action, provides value examples, and notes warnings. However, the undocumented page parameter and lack of usage guidance leave clear gaps, even though an output schema exists.
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 must compensate. It provides meaningful examples for the scale parameter ('1:50', '1:100'), but the optional page parameter is completely undocumented, leaving agents unable to determine its purpose or acceptable values.
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 states a specific action ('Change the print scale') and the resource ('print scale') with concrete examples. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as set_page_size or set_orientation, but 'print scale' is clear enough to avoid most ambiguity.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_page_size or set_view, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The warning clause describes outcome, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.