Resize canvas

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

Annotations only declare mutating, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral detail that layers are not resampled and are offset according to the anchor, which is exactly the non-obvious side effect an agent needs. It does not over-elaborate.

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 tight sentences lead with the main effect and then the key layer-preservation caveat. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core outcome and anchor behavior. It could add unit clarity or mention what happens to layers outside the new bounds, but with annotations covering safety/idempotency this is fairly complete.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the anchor parameter's role in offsetting layers, but width and height units/semantics and path are not elaborated beyond the schema, leaving a gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Changes the document size') and clarifies the exact behavior ('without resampling layers'), which distinguishes it from the layer-manipulation and export siblings. There is no tautology or vagueness.

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 implies the use case: resizing the canvas while preserving layer pixels. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, though no sibling directly competes with this operation.

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