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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description should clarify what a resize overwrites (e.g., that unspecified dimensions are preserved or replaced) and whether the current artwork scale is lost. Instead it only notes that 'Core already converts' physical units — useful but not the mutation semantics an agent needs before an irreversible edit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the unit rule and a worked example. No filler; only the somewhat loose term 'target' costs it a perfect score.

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?

This is a complex destructive mutation with 20+ nested options, alias fields, and a nested placement object, yet the description covers only the centimetre/millimetre case. It never explains single-vs-multiple element targets, how x/y/scale combine with width/height, or what 'the specified print area' means relative to areaId/areaIds/targetAreas — all left to the schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does add real value by explaining that widthCm/heightMm are converted by Core and by giving a concrete call example, but it says nothing about the scale/scalePercent/width/placement.size families or the plural ID aliases.

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 ('Resize the target in the specified print area'), which is clear on its own. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling resize_group, and 'target' is left undefined even though elementId/elementIds/targetElementIds all exist.

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?

No statement of when to use this instead of move_element, resize_group, move_to_print_area, or align_element — all of which overlap. The only guidance is a unit-choice hint ('for physical dimensions use widthCm/heightMm'), which is parameter selection rather than tool selection.

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