rhino_scale_2d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the operation and the factor's directionality. It does not disclose reversibility/undo behavior, what happens with no selection, the base point or plane used, or whether the transformation is destructive to the selected 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 short and front-loaded, but the Args block lists a 'controller' parameter that is absent from the input schema, which is noise and could confuse an agent. Otherwise, the formatting is compact and readable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, this is incomplete: it does not explain how a selection is made, what happens when no objects are selected, where the scale base point is, or which two directions are used. The generic 'Dict with command result' return note adds little, though an output schema exists.

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 provides only a numeric factor with a default, while the description adds the key semantic that the factor is applied to both directions. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage; no parameter constraints or base-point implications are given, which is a minor gap.

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 lead line uses a specific verb and resource—'Scale selected objects in two directions simultaneously'—and labels it as 2-D scale, which distinguishes it from rhino_scale_1d and the generic rhino_scale. It does not explicitly name its siblings, but the directional qualifier is enough to prevent an obvious mis-selection.

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 cue is that it acts on 'selected objects'; there is no statement about when to choose 2-D scaling over rhino_scale_1d, rhino_scale_nu, or rhino_scale, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active selection, cplane, or base point. An agent is left to infer invocation context.

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