document_page_adjust

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

destructiveHint=true already warns that this mutates irreversibly, but the description does not say what is destroyed (content outside cropped margins) or why expectedRevision is required for concurrency safety. It does add one useful trait beyond the annotations: object geometry is preserved rather than rescaled, which helps distinguish it from resize.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler and the operations front-loaded before the invariant. Efficient, though the compression is partly what leaves the behavioral and parameter gaps unaddressed.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. Even granting that the output schema covers return values, an agent gets no help on unit/anchor interaction, crop vs expand semantics, or the revision-check workflow.

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 only gestures at margins being 'explicit physical margins', mapping loosely to the margins and unit fields, and says nothing about the action enum values, anchor alignment, path, workspaceId, or expectedRevision semantics.

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?

Names three specific operations (crop, expand, toggle orientation) on a specific resource (page) with a stated invariant (preserving object geometry). It is clearly distinguishable from a generic resize, but it never names the closest siblings (document_resize, document_fit_page) to draw the boundary.

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, document_fit_page, or images_crop, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing the current revision or being scoped to a workspace. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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