scale_sprite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that scaling includes artwork and mentions the method parameter, but does not explain whether the operation is destructive, in-place, or returns a result. It also omits details about layer handling, aspect ratio preservation, or animation support.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then explains the two scaling options, then the method parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 sprite scaling tool without output schema, the description covers the essential parameters and options but lacks details on return values, in-place modification, and effects on layers/cels. Given that annotations are absent, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: it explains the mutual exclusivity of `factor` vs `width`/`height`, provides an example for `factor` (2.0 to double), and clarifies the two scaling methods. However, it does not explain the required `filename` parameter or the default null values.

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 clearly states that it scales the whole sprite including artwork, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It is distinct from sibling tools like `resize_canvas` (which only resizes canvas) but does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar scaling actions.

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 advises to provide either `factor` OR explicit `width`/`height`, giving usage guidance for the mutually exclusive parameters. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like `resize_canvas`, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use.

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