rhino_scale_nu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state the core effect (per-axis scaling), the affected objects ('selected objects'), and the return type ('Dict with command result'). It does not disclose side effects such as permanent model mutation, undo reliance, integer-only factor restriction, or behavior when nothing is selected, which is a meaningful gap for a mutating operation. The disclosure is honest but far from comprehensive.

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 front-loads a one-sentence purpose statement and then uses a compact, scannable Args/Returns layout. The three 'Scale factor in X/Y/Z' lines are slightly redundant with the parameter names, and the controller line adds noise, but there is no padding or unnecessary elaboration beyond that.

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 3-parameter transform with defaults on every parameter and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, per-axis parameter semantics, and return type. It falls short by not differentiating among the scale siblings (rhino_scale, rhino_scale_1d, rhino_scale_2d, rhino_cmd_scale), not stating the selection prerequisite explicitly, and carrying the controller parameter mismatch. Given the large sibling list, a single routing sentence would meaningfully improve completeness.

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%, and the description compensates by defining each property with 'x_factor: Scale factor in X' and analogous lines for Y and Z. However, the Args block also documents 'controller: RhinoController instance,' which does not exist in the input schema, creating a mismatch that could lead an agent to invent an unsupported argument. It also leaves value semantics unstated, such as 1 being identity and lower values shrinking, and does not address the schema's integer restriction on factors.

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 opening sentence, 'Scale selected objects non-uniformly along X, Y, Z,' names a specific verb (scale), resource (selected objects), and scope (three independent axes). The qualifier 'non-uniformly' explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools such as rhino_scale (uniform), rhino_scale_1d, and rhino_scale_2d. This is a precise, distinguishing statement.

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 its usage context — per-axis non-uniform scaling — and states the target is 'selected objects,' which hints at a selection precondition. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over rhino_scale_1d, rhino_scale_2d, or rhino_cmd_scale, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative routing. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the 'nu' suffix and the word 'non-uniformly.'

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