rescale_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the STL is modified in-place, that success also opens an interactive 3D stage, that oversized meshes are decimated for that stage, and that the PNG preview is not the full experience. This prevents surprising side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with bolded sections and separation between uniform and per-axis scaling. It is somewhat long, but every section is meaningful given the parameter complexity and the unexpected 3D-stage side effect.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, in-place mutation, and success side effects. It does not explicitly describe the return value or error conditions, but the side effects are the primary behavioral information the agent needs.

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%, but the description provides complete semantics for all seven parameters: target_height_mm means Z-axis height, scale_factor is a uniform multiplier, max_dimension_mm caps the largest axis, and omitted per-axis values default to 1.0. It also encodes the critical cross-parameter rule that uniform and per-axis scaling cannot be combined.

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 first sentence clearly states the action: 'Rescale an STL model to meet dimensional targets.' It then specifies the exact scaling modes and target meanings, making the tool's role unmistakable and distinct from siblings like rotate_model or scale_mesh_to_fit.

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 gives a clear trigger: 'Useful when a generated model is the wrong size for the printer's build volume or doesn't match the desired dimensions.' It also explicitly explains the two scaling modes and forbids combining them, but it doesn't name alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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