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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one behavioral note – that placing an illustration removes its drawing board – which is consistent with destructiveHint but delivered cryptically and without explaining whether the removal is reversible or which objects 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?

It's a single front-loaded sentence, so there's little waste, but the second clause is ambiguous and could mislead rather than clarify. The brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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 destructive, 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should explain the box coordinate semantics, mode behavior, and the artboard target. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call this confidently.

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% and the description only implies that x/y/width/height define a box, without explaining them or covering shape_ids, artboard, or the contain/cover/stretch modes. With all 7 parameters undocumented and one enum unexplained, the description leaves most parameter meaning to guesswork.

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 pair of verbs (scale and move) and a resource (shapes) with a target (a box), which tells an agent what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like fit_artboard, fit_to_children, resize, or transform, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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's no guidance on when to choose this over fit_to_children, fit_artboard, or plain transform, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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