set_dimensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains that empty axes stay, uniform uses the first given axis as a factor, the anchor point remains fixed, and apply bakes scale so the object keeps scale 1 and exports cleanly. It still omits permissions, reversibility, and hierarchy effects, so it is not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then uses compact sentences to cover the key behaviors. Every sentence adds useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers most parameter semantics and the side effect of baking scale. It does not explain the required name target or return behavior, leaving a notable but not severe 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 x/y/z handling, uniform, anchor with default logic and an example, and apply. The required name parameter remains unexplained, preventing a 5.

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 and resource: 'Set the size in metres.' This is clear and actionable, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as transform_objects or apply_transforms, so it falls short of a 5.

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 through the resize operation and parameter behaviors like uniform and apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives such as transform_objects or measure. A 3 reflects minimum viable implied usage.

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