Resize (scale) elements

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true/idempotent=false, and the description goes well beyond them: model element heights are NOT scaled, text/labels scale per Archicad rules, and locked / locked-hidden-layer / hotlinked / out-of-workspace elements are returned as actionable errors rather than silently edited. That is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its arguments, then the return shape, then the error cases - a logical order. It is dense for a single paragraph and some return-shape detail is verbose, but every sentence carries information with little filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description fully documents the return contract (results array in input order, warning vs error entries, the copy-style result with copies/createdCount). Combined with the error-handling and scaling-rule notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by giving ratio examples ('2 = double size, 0.5 = half') and restating default-centre and copy semantics. It adds modest extra interpretation rather than new parameter detail, hence a 4 rather than 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?

States a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Scales elements in plan by `ratio` around a centre point', names the UI locus, and gives concrete examples (2 = double, 0.5 = half). The agent can distinguish this resize operation from sibling transforms like move_elements, rotate_elements and mirror_elements without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: default centre is the bounding-box centre, and copy=true transforms copies while keeping originals. It never names a sibling or an explicit when-not condition (e.g. use move/rotate instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance, but a caller knows the conditions under which this tool applies.

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