Gp Resample

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's note about write/path restrictions being service-dependent hints at environment constraints but stays too generic to tell the agent what will be written or where. No contradiction with 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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects absence of content rather than economy. The front-loaded clause merely repeats the tool name, so no sentence earns its place beyond the generic 'structured results' claim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a four-parameter raster-processing tool with 0% schema coverage the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine valid inputs, resampling options, or expected side effects from what is written.

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% across four parameters (in_raster, out_raster, cell_size, resampling_type), and the description supplies nothing about any of them — not the raster path format, cell-size units, or the NEAREST default and its alternatives. The description fully fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('resamplegp resample') with no explanation of what raster resampling accomplishes or what output is produced. With dozens of sibling gp_* raster tools (clip_raster, project_raster, nibble, etc.), the agent gets no basis for distinguishing this one. It is close to a tautology.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling raster tools it competes with. The only contextual scrap ('write and path restrictions subject to service capabilities') is a vague disclaimer, not usage guidance.

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