document_fit_page

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry the rest of the burden. 'This never transforms objects' is a genuinely useful clarification about what is and isn't mutated, but it omits concurrency/optimistic-locking behavior around expectedRevision, permission needs, and what page state changes. Adds real value but leaves major gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key non-mutation caveat. Nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, but a destructive, revision-guarded mutation tool with 7 parameters (5 required), nested margins, and 0% param coverage is under-specified. An agent cannot reliably invoke this without inferring parameter meanings and lock semantics.

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 7 parameters. The description implies 'margins' via 'explicit per-side margins' and touches the scope choice, but leaves unit, path, ids, workspaceId, and expectedRevision entirely unexplained. It only marginally compensates for the coverage 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 states a specific verb (fits) and resource (page) and clarifies the two bound modes ('native visual drawing or selected-object bounds'), which map to the scope enum. This differentiates it from the page-manipulation siblings (document_resize, document_page_adjust), though it never names them.

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 guidance on when to choose this over document_resize or document_page_adjust, nor on prerequisites such as the required expectedRevision or whether a selection must exist. The 'never transforms objects' note is a behavioral trait, not a usage directive.

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