sw_scale

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only but non-destructive, and the description adds the important behavioral scope that all solid bodies are affected. It still omits whether a scale feature is created, whether changes are reversible, how active-document defaulting works, and how factor and factors interact.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a five-parameter mutation tool it is arguably under-specified rather than fully structured.

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 non-read-only geometry mutation with five parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the operation creates or changes, whether it applies only to the active document, or how uniform and non-uniform scaling options are resolved. It leaves too much for the agent to infer before invoking the tool.

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 description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, despite five parameters and only 60% schema description coverage. In particular, the critical factor/factors relationship and the about origin/centroid choice are not explained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Scale all solid bodies,' with a concrete example use case (shrinkage compensation). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent body-operation tools such as sw_move_copy_body or sw_combine, but it is clear enough to identify the operation.

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 only usage hint is the example 'shrinkage compensation'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. An agent must infer that this is the right tool whenever solid bodies need scaling.

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