set_scale_to_frame_size

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

Annotations already indicate this tool is mutable (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it enables a toggle, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it overrides existing scale settings, or if it's reversible). Minimal additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the action, target, and effect. No superfluous words, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 simple toggle with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information (what it does and the outcome). However, it lacks some depth (e.g., alternatives, reversibility) that could help an agent decide, given the rich sibling context.

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?

The input schema already describes item_id with 'Node ID or name of the project item' (100% coverage). The description does not add any further parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Enable') and the specific resource ('Scale to Frame Size') on a project item, with a clear outcome ('fills the sequence frame'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_clip_scale or set_uniform_scale by targeting a different property.

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?

The description implies when to use (when you want the item to automatically scale to fill the frame), but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools (e.g., manual scaling via set_clip_scale). With many sibling tools, this lack of differentiation slightly reduces clarity.

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