scale_shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that parametric history is broken, the source object is hidden and consumed, the output is a static Part::Feature, omission of center scales about the world origin and moves the shape, and factor values must be greater than zero.

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 critical side effects, then uses a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds necessary information for correct invocation, and the return-value note is concise and useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 4-parameter CAD mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the missing parameter semantics, side effects, unit conventions, and return shape. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 does: handle, factor (scalar or per-axis with positive constraint), center (pivot behavior and default origin behavior), and name (default label) are all explained. It also adds units in mm and clarifies the normalized return factor.

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 (scale) and resource (shape), with the modality 'uniformly or per-axis, baking a fresh static solid.' It also distinguishes the result from linked/parametric features, so an agent can tell it apart from general transform or copy operations without opening the 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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate by explaining that scaling breaks parametric history and produces a standalone Part::Feature while hiding the consumed source. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as transform or copy_shape, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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