rhino_cmd_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that it scales selected objects, implying a scene modification, but does not clarify whether it modifies objects in place or creates copies, what happens with no selection, or whether the operation is reversible/undoable. This is a meaningful gap for a transformation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the one-line summary, followed by a succinct parameter list. No redundant prose appears. The 'Returns: Dict with command result' line is somewhat vague, but since an output schema exists, it does not meaningfully hurt the structure.

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?

The parameters are fully documented and an output schema is present, so the call itself is clear. However, the description omits usage context and behavioral caveats: no note on selecting objects beforehand, no warning that this modifies the model, and no guidance on choosing this over rhino_scale. Given the lack of annotations, these gaps make the description adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: cx, cy, cz are explained as coordinates of the scale origin, and factor is explicitly defined with '>1 enlarges, <1 shrinks'. This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Uniformly scale selected objects about a center point.' The word 'uniformly' distinguishes it from non-uniform scale siblings like rhino_scale_1d, rhino_scale_2d, and rhino_scale_nu, but it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling rhino_scale.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the relationship to rhino_scale, non-uniform scaling options, or any prerequisites such as pre-selecting objects. The only implicit usage signal is that the tool scales selected objects uniformly, which is more purpose than usage guidance.

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