gimp_scale_image

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the aspect-ratio-preservation behavior, but says nothing about the default interpolation (cubic) or that rescaling resamples pixel data irreversibly.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the parameter guidance follows immediately. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

This is a mutating image operation with 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail beyond safety flags. Missing image_id semantics (is it optional? which image is default?), the meaning of each interpolation mode, and any statement about the effect on the existing image.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It clarifies the width/height/percent relationship and aspect-ratio fallback, but image_id and interpolation are completely unexplained, and no defaults are mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Escala la imagen entera") with the scope qualifier "entera", which implicitly separates it from canvas-only operations like gimp_resize_canvas. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 explains how to drive the tool (width and/or height, aspect ratio preserved when one is missing, or percent), which is implied invocation guidance. It gives no when-to-use / when-not-to-use direction against gimp_resize_canvas, gimp_crop, or gimp_rotate_flip_image.

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