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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is available elsewhere. The description adds only that dimensions are exact; it does not explain destructive effects, anchor behavior, aspect-ratio handling, or what happens when only one dimension is supplied.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded. It does not waste words, though its terseness leaves several parameters unexplained rather than structured.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, this is too sparse. An agent can infer the basic operation, but not anchor semantics, required shape targeting, or the implications of missing width/height values.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions width and height and indirectly shape_ids via 'shapes'. It says nothing about the anchor enum, the required shape_ids array, or whether width and height are optional or mutually exclusive.

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 states a specific verb and resource: setting exact width or height on shapes. It is clear enough to distinguish a dimension-setting operation from generic transforms, but it does not name or differentiate against siblings such as transform, fit_to_box, or make_responsive.

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 explicit guidance on when to use resize versus transform, fit_to_box, make_responsive, or align. The phrase 'exact width or height' hints at a use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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