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

The description communicates that this tool creates resized pages from an image and implies direct execution when target formats are known. It adds some context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose what kind of resources are created, whether any existing designs or images are affected, or how repeated calls behave. The annotations already mark it as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description is not contradictory but also not deeply transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes a direct conditional usage note. There is no fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for choosing between this tool and the show alternative, but as a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it leaves significant gaps. An agent can understand when to call it but would struggle to infer correct values for the optional parameters or predict what the return response looks like.

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 for the seven parameters. It gives meaningful hints only for `creationIdentifier` ('from an image') and `aspectRatios` ('ratios/social formats'). Parameters such as `numLayers`, `textLayers`, `imageLayers`, `multipage`, and `name` are left entirely unexplained.

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 clearly states the action ('Create resized design pages from an image') and the core resource being produced. It also distinguishes itself from the suggested informational alternative `design_auto_resize_show`, making the tool's purpose easy to identify among the large sibling set.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('when ratios/social formats are known') and what to do otherwise ('otherwise show design_auto_resize_show'). This is a clean when/when-not/alternative instruction, fully satisfying the dimension.

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