object_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('adjusts object size') without any information about side effects, permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single Korean phrase—with no wasted words. It's front-loaded but arguably too brief, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. However, it efficiently communicates the core action without redundancy.

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 (5 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'adjusting size' entails in this context, what objects are affected, the impact of parameters like originX/Y, or what the tool returns. For a scaling tool in what appears to be a graphics/design environment, more context is needed.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., scaleX, scaleY, originX, originY). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '객체 크기를 조절합니다' (adjusts object size) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'object_scale' in Korean. It provides a generic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what type of objects or context, and doesn't distinguish from siblings like object_rotate or object_move which also modify objects. The purpose is clear at a basic level but too vague for effective differentiation.

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. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like object_rotate for rotation or object_move for positioning. Without this, an agent might struggle to choose between similar object manipulation tools.

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