resize_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that the node gets resized and that constraint preservation is optional, but it does not disclose side effects, default behavior, or whether the resize is absolute or relative. The phrase 'constraint preservation' is also ambiguous relative to the preserveAsect parameter.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and places the optional behavior immediately after. It is appropriately sized for its low complexity.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and there is no output schema. The description plus schema is enough to understand what the tool does and how to call it. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it over siblings and any behavioral transparency, which limits completeness for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema; 'constraint preservation' may relate to preserveAsect, but it is vague. The parameter descriptions in the schema already provide the necessary 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?

The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Resize a node with optional constraint preservation.' This makes the core operation clear and adds a useful distinguishing detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as batch_resize or modify_node that also involve resizing.

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. It does not mention that this is for single-node resizing, nor does it point to batch_resize for multiple nodes. There is no implied usage context beyond the tool name itself.

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