scale_sprite

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds real context: the scaled canvas is subject to the same dimension/area caps as `create_sprite`, and with `factor` the check runs inside Aseprite and reports the resulting size. That explains a non-obvious failure mode, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter guidance, then caveats. Four short lines with no repetition, though the closing sentence about the cap check is slightly longer than needed.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, parameter alternatives, method semantics, and the size-cap constraint. It does not describe the return payload other than the size report, but that is minor.

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 coverage is only 20% (just `method`), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains `factor` semantics (2.0 = double), the width/height alternative, mutual exclusivity, and the meaning of 'nearest' vs 'bilinear'. Only the `filename` parameter goes unexplained, which is self-evident.

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+resource ('Scale the whole sprite') and clarifies scope with '(artwork included)', which implicitly separates it from resize_canvas. It doesn't name resize_canvas or flip_sprite/rotate_sprite explicitly, so the differentiation from siblings is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear operating context: use either `factor` OR explicit `width`/`height`, and explains the two `method` choices. It doesn't state when to prefer this over resize_canvas or when scaling is inappropriate, but the invocation conditions are unambiguous.

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