Scale selected objects non-uniformly around a center point using independent X, Y, and Z scale factors. Optionally make a copy to keep the original geometry intact.
Scale objects non-uniformly about a centre.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which already alerts the agent to a mutation. The description adds that scaling is non-uniform and about a center, which is behaviorally useful. However, it does not disclose side effects such as what happens to object selections, whether copies are made by default, or implications for dependent objects.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior and key distinction. It could be slightly more informative but remains efficient.
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 this is a mutation tool with no output schema details and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core operation but omits practical context such as which objects are affected, how the center point is interpreted, and whether make_copy defaults to false.
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%, but the input schema contains self-describing parameter names (center, factor_x, factor_y, factor_z, object_ids, make_copy, doc_id) and the Point3dModel has its own description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 'Scale objects non-uniformly about a centre' clearly states the verb (scale), resource (objects), and key characteristic (non-uniformly about a centre). It is distinguishable from sibling scale tools like rhino_scale_1d and rhino_scale_2d, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 usage for non-uniform scaling and differentiates from uniform scaling by using 'non-uniformly', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., rhino_scale_1d, rhino_scale_2d, rhino_scale_nu). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.