autocad_scale_entity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds that scaling happens 'in place' (mutating the existing entity rather than producing a copy) and sketches the success payload, but says nothing about failure modes, undo requirements, or which entity types are supported.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and the total length is short. Some space is spent restating parameter and return details already encoded in the schema, but nothing is padded or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return note is optional, and the destructiveHint annotation signals mutation. Still, for a destructive in-place edit the description omits error conditions, allowed entity types, and whether a prior autocad_undo/reference handle is needed, leaving real gaps.

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 Args block enumerates handle, base, and factor, but the meanings mirror the schema's own nested descriptions ('Entity handle as returned by a create/query tool', 'Scale base point (fixed point)', 'Uniform scale factor (> 0)'). No extra syntax, units, or examples are added beyond the schema's pattern, exclusiveMinimum, and Point definition.

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 gives a precise verb+resource+modifier: 'Uniformly scale an entity in place about a base point.' 'Uniformly' and 'in place' clearly separate it from siblings like autocad_move_entity, autocad_rotate_entity, autocad_mirror_entity, and the array tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., the entity handle must come from a create/query tool), and no mention of the sibling operations this replaces. The Args block documents inputs but says nothing about when this tool is the right choice.

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