scale_entities

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: scaling is 'uniform' (one factor for all axes) and anchored 'about a base point', which tells the agent the base point is the fixed reference. It does not say what happens to entities whose handles are missing or how the factor behaves below 1.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; every word carries information. It is arguably terse to a fault, but it is not padded or back-loaded, so it satisfies the conciseness bar well.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. What remains thin is the transform semantics themselves: whether the base point is absolute or relative, and how non-existent handles are handled. Adequate but with visible gaps for a 3-required-param geometry mutation.

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 67%: 'handles' and 'base_point' are documented inline, while 'factor' is only constrained by exclusiveMinimum: 0. The description's word 'uniformly' implies a single scalar factor applied to all axes, which is meaningful, but it adds no format, range, or coordinate-space detail beyond what the schema already supplies. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 specific verb+resource ('scale entities') plus the two qualifiers that matter most for disambiguation: 'uniformly' and 'about a base point'. An agent can distinguish it from offset_entity, rotate_entities, or a hypothetical non-uniform scaler. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: resize existing entities rather than move/rotate/copy them. There is no statement of when to prefer this over offset_entity or set_entity_properties, and no prerequisites (e.g. entities must be selected by handle). Minimal but adequate.

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