scale_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the base stays on the floor and the size is clamped to the room. It does not mention reversibility, failure conditions, or persistence, but for a simple scaling operation the provided behavior is informative.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and parameter behavior, with no wasted words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 description covers the essential behavior needed to call the tool correctly, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gaps like error handling or id format remain, but they are not critical for this low-complexity 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the factor parameter well, including multiplicative semantics and size direction, but does not elaborate on object_id format or edge cases like zero or negative factors. The object_id meaning is fairly obvious from its name.

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 uses a specific verb ('scale') with a resource ('an object by id') and defines the core semantics of the factor (>1 larger, <1 smaller). It clearly differentiates this from sibling operations like move_object and rotate_object.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives such as replace_object or edit_with_agent are not mentioned, so the agent must infer selection from context.

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