set_map_scale

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the .aprx project conditionally ('when save=true') and uses a specific API. However, it does not mention potential side effects, such as overwriting previous scale values, or any prerequisites like ensuring the layout and map frame exist.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loading the primary action and use case. Every sentence adds value, though the third sentence could be merged with the first to improve efficiency.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple parameters for layout, map frame, and save behavior), the description adequately sets the context for a layout export workflow. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites or default behaviors for layout_name and map_frame, but the schema covers those defaults.

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 schema descriptions already provide good explanations for parameters like scale and save, but the context reports 0% schema coverage. The tool description adds some context about scale (1:1000 examples) and save (temporary changes), but does not elaborate on aprx_path, map_frame, or layout_name beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('set the camera scale denominator'), the target resource ('selected layout map frame'), and the specific tool used ('arcpy.mp camera.scale'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_layout_pdf or set_map_extent_from_layer by specifying a known-scale use case.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'before exporting a layout when the map must be fixed to a known scale.' While it does not list alternative tools or when not to use it, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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