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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not explain what is destructive, what happens to the container or children, or how padding affects the result. It adds almost no behavioral context beyond the title and annotations.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, for a tool with three parameters including a complex padding object and a destructive annotation, it is too terse to be appropriately sized.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a destructiveHint=true annotation, the definition is incomplete. It should explain parameter behavior, especially padding, and clarify the destructive mutation and how it relates to sibling fit tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain container_id, child_ids, or the complex padding option. It only generically mentions a container and children, leaving all parameter semantics to the undocumented schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: resize a container, with the outcome of wrapping its children. The purpose is clear, but it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as fit_to_box, fit_artboard, or resize.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of fit_to_box, fit_artboard, resize, or align. The usage is only weakly implied by the tool name and sentence.

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