resize_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('resize') but doesn't explain what happens during execution: whether this is a destructive mutation, if it requires specific permissions, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies presentation content.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the structured fields. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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 ('resize') and target ('an element on a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'move_element' or 'set_element_opacity' that also manipulate slide elements, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation), comparison to similar tools like 'move_element', or constraints (e.g., whether resizing affects element content).

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