set_sheet_scale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely valuable behavioral trait: views using the sheet scale follow the change. It does not state that views with an overridden/custom scale are unaffected, whether the operation requires an active drawing document, or what happens when no sheet is active — all material for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 the primary action first and the side effect second. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the parameter is fully specified, so the core is adequate. But for an unannotated mutation tool, the description omits preconditions (an active drawing sheet must exist), failure behavior, and the interaction with individually scaled views — the gaps an agent would most likely trip over.

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 single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema (numerator/denominator with a 1:2 example and positivity constraints), so the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never mentions numerator/denominator, the ratio representation, or what the null default implies.

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 and resource ('Set the active drawing sheet's scale') and adds a scoping clause that clarifies what the scale applies to. An agent can tell this changes the sheet-level scale rather than an individual view, though it does not name a sibling (e.g., update_sheet_format or set_dimension) that a similar-sounding task might require.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (an open document with an active drawing sheet), and no mention of the alternatives among the many drawing-related siblings such as update_sheet_format. Usage is only inferrable from the tool name and the propagated-effect clause.

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