Scale Body

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety/mutation status is already structured. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context about measurement units (cm, degrees), but omits what non-idempotence means in practice (scaling is cumulative/compounding) and whether downstream features are affected.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the unit caveat trailing. No filler or repetition.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and units but leaves the result unspecified: no mention of the returned value, how scale_x/y/z override interplay behaves, or whether the operation compounds across calls. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description goes beyond it by supplying the unit convention for lengths, coordinates, and angles, which the schema never states – a real gap-filler for the anchor_x/y/z and scale parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scale a body') and explicitly covers both modes (uniform or non-uniform), which lets an agent match it to a scaling operation. It does not distinguish itself from nearby transform siblings such as move_body or mirror, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for resizing geometry rather than, say, move_body or create_box_parametric.

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