rhino_scale_non_uniform

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint: false). It does not mention effects on the scene, permissions, reversibility, or return behavior, leaving a significant gap for a transform operation.

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 short sentence, which is structurally simple and front-loaded, but it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative. Conciseness is not beneficial when critical details are omitted.

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's complexity (non-uniform scaling with a center point and three factors), an output schema exists but is not described, and no parameter semantics are provided, the description is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without relying entirely on the schema.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the parameters (guids, center, factor_x, factor_y, factor_z). Even though the schema itself contains per-parameter descriptions, the tool description should compensate for low coverage but fails to mention any parameter details.

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 clear action ('Scale objects') with the key differentiator 'separate X, Y, Z factors', which distinguishes it from the sibling rhino_scale for uniform scaling. It is specific and immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly name the tool or contrast it with rhino_scale in the text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_scale for uniform scaling. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, with no explicit exclusions or conditions.

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