set_dimensions

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

The annotations declare a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description usefully adds what happens beyond that: empty axes are preserved, the anchor point stays fixed, and apply=true bakes the scale so the object keeps scale 1 and exports cleanly. This is meaningful behavioral context rather than repetition.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by disambiguating uniform, anchor, and apply respectively.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly, though it never names the required target parameter or notes any return behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the params, and it largely does: it clarifies x/y/z nullability ('empty axes stay'), uniform (first axis sets a factor for all), anchor (fractions 0..1, (0.5,0.5,0) keeps the bottom) and apply. Only the required 'name' target goes unmentioned.

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 size in metres), which is clearer than generic siblings like transform_objects or apply_transforms. The scope is well defined, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against those siblings.

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?

Explains behavioral options (uniform, anchor, apply) but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when to pick set_dimensions over transform_objects or apply_transforms.

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