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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'preserving their relative layout' (aspect/positional preservation), but says nothing about what is destroyed or overwritten by the mutation, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then sizing syntax, then selection semantics. No filler and each sentence carries actionable information.

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 mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent, sizing modes and selection scope adequately. It stops short of describing the effect on the resulting layout response or how it behaves with areaIds/targetAreas when multiple print areas are supplied.

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 100%, but the description still adds genuine meaning beyond the raw property list: it pairs widthCm/heightCm as group bounds, explains scale vs scalePercent as equivalent units, and clarifies that omitted elementIds selects every element in areaId. It leaves the numerous aliases (width/height, placement, areaIds, targetAreas) unaddressed.

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+resource (resize group of elements) and scope ('all or selected elements together'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-element sibling resize_element. The phrase 'in one print area' is slightly at odds with the schema's areaIds/targetAreas plurals, leaving the multi-area story ambiguous.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance on the two sizing modes (widthCm/heightCm for group bounds vs scale:0.8 / scalePercent:80) and the selection rule for elementIds. It does not say when to prefer this over resize_element or move_to_print_area, so no explicit exclusions.

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