ass_scale_drawing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the common-origin scaling behavior, that coordinates stay in each clip's own scale space, the integer rounding rule, and the non-mutating nature of dry_run. It omits permissions/save-state implications of the actual mutation, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining detail is substantive rather than filler. The trailing return-shape line duplicates the existing output schema and the heavy markdown emphasis adds length without adding meaning.

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 zero annotations, the description covers the geometry semantics, the clip-vs-drawing scope, and the dry-run escape hatch well, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The undocumented doc_id and selection parameters are the main remaining 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 must compensate, and it explains factor, include_clips, and dry_run meaningfully. However, doc_id and selection are never described, leaving two of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific resource (the drawing part of each selected line and its clips), and a driving parameter (factor). It is clearly distinguishable from nearby siblings such as ass_transform_drawing, ass_scale_times, and ass_karaoke_scale.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for two modes: include_clips=False scales only the \p drawing, and dry_run=True reports without touching the document. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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