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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates the document. The description adds scoping detail (it operates on the active artboard and the artwork on it) but never says what is actually altered — the artboard bounds or the artwork — nor what becomes destructive about it. With annotations covering the safety profile, this partial addition merits a 3 rather than higher.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core operation comes before the optional parameter. It is arguably too terse for what it omits, but on structure and waste it performs well.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations present, the description covers the essentials of what it does. The meaningful gaps are the units and effect of padding and the ambiguity against the fit_* siblings, which leave an agent guessing at invocation details.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, and it says only 'optional padding'. It confirms optionality but gives no units (px, pt), no default, and no indication of whether padding expands or shrinks the fitted bounds — information the schema cannot supply.

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 ('Fit the active artboard to the artwork on it'), which is more precise than the title alone because it names the target artboard as the *active* one. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like fit_to_children or fit_to_box, which an agent could easily mistake for this operation.

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 statement of when to use this versus fit_to_children, fit_to_box, resize, or align_to_artboard, all of which live in the same sibling list. The intent is inferable from the name, but the description provides no routing guidance or preconditions (e.g., whether artwork must be selected first).

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