resize_palette

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is carried by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavior for growth ('new entries are black'), but says nothing about the shrink case — whether colors are truncated, remapped, or an error is raised — which is exactly the destructive scenario the annotation warns about.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target, with the parenthetical default placed last. Efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the destructive/shrink behavior unaddressed rather than deliberately trimmed.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema documentation, so the description carries the full burden. It covers growth only; an agent cannot tell what happens to existing palette entries on shrink, whether indices in existing artwork are remapped, or what the call returns.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains that `size` is a count of palette entries and how added entries are initialized, which is real value, but `filename` is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the surface 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Resize the palette') plus the target dimension (`size` entries), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like set_palette, quantize_palette, or sort_palette. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those palette siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this versus the many adjacent palette tools (quantize_palette, set_palette, extract_palette, add_palette_color). No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are given; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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