Resize a local image

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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false); the description adds real value by disclosing that a new local file is written and verified, that re-encoding may strip metadata, and that upscaling is disabled by default. It does not say whether an existing output_path is overwritten.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and formats, then the sizing rules, then behavioral notes. The phrase 'existing abox.tools geometry and codecs' is mild filler but arguably signals consistency with sibling tools.

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?

With no output schema, low schema coverage, and a mutation tool, the description should carry more: overwrite behavior on output_path, what 'verifies' means, and the role of quality/background when re-encoding are all unstated. The core geometry semantics are covered, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 22% of 9 parameters, and the description compensates for some: the meaning of fit values ('contain' fits the whole image, 'cover' crops centrally) and the default of allow_upscale. It says nothing about format, quality, or background, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 a still JPEG, PNG, or WebP') plus the scope of supported formats, which cleanly separates it from siblings such as abox_image_convert and abox_image_compress. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 concrete invocation conditions: specify width, height, or both; contain fits the whole image, cover crops centrally; upscaling is off by default. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use abox_image_convert to change format only) or stating when not to use it.

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