set_scale_to_frame_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral disclosure. It says to 'Enable' a setting, implying a mutation, but does not mention persistence, whether the setting is idempotent, required permissions, undo behavior, or what happens if already enabled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action and target.

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 one-parameter tool, the definition is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves behavioral gaps around mutation semantics and return behavior. It is complete enough to invoke safely but not rich enough to fully predict effects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description only implies that the operation targets a project item and adds no further meaning about nodeId or identifier expectations beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Enable') and a specific setting ('Scale to Frame Size') applied to a well-scoped resource ('a project item'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool.

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: use it when you want to enable Scale to Frame Size on a project item. The description gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives, but the operation is narrow enough that the context is reasonably clear.

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