resize

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the label is recentered as a side effect — but says nothing about units, coordinate anchoring, whether aspect ratio is preserved, or behavior on elements without labels.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than being a model of completeness.

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 need not be explained, and the annotations cover idempotency and world scope. Still, for a 3-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage, the description should say what the dimensions mean and which element types qualify; the one-sentence label note is not enough.

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%: element_id, width, and height carry only types and bounds, with no textual explanation. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions the parameters, so units (pixels? points?), whether width/height are absolute or relative, and what element_id must identify are all undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Resize') plus the resource ('a shape') and adds a secondary effect ('recenter its label'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like move or update_element. It is slightly vague about whether non-shape elements (text, frames) are accepted, since the input schema just takes a generic element_id.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings such as move and update_element present, the agent is left to infer that resize is for changing dimensions and update_element is for other property changes, but the description never states this or names an alternative.

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