batch_resize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, how scale interacts with width/height, whether aspect ratio is preserved, or what happens when conflicting parameters are supplied.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it may be too terse to fully earn its place given the lack of behavioral context.

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, no output schema, and optional sizing parameters, the description is incomplete. It leaves unstated how the sizing parameters should be used together, what units are expected, and whether any node must be selected first, making it insufficient for confident invocation in complex cases.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains the parameters (scale factor, new width, new height, target nodes). The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 'Resize multiple nodes' states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling batch tools like batch_style or batch_align, but the resize operation is unambiguous enough to avoid confusion.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_align, modify_node, or individual resize operations. The phrase 'multiple nodes' implies batch usage, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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