cocos_set_node_scale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set') but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive mutation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple statement.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which helps), but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving too much undefined for a mutation tool with multiple inputs.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'node's local scale' but doesn't explain parameters like scene_path, node_id, sx, sy, or sz (e.g., that sx, sy, sz are scale factors, sz defaults to 1). It adds minimal value beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Set a node's local scale' clearly states the action (set) and target resource (node's local scale), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cocos_set_node_position' or 'cocos_set_node_rotation' by specifying scale, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the obvious parameter differences.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It lacks any mention of related tools (e.g., other node transformation tools) or scenarios where setting scale is appropriate, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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