resize_for_platform

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the original file is modified, where the output is saved (the schema does this), how 'optimize' affects quality, or any other side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 a single, reasonably sized sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists platform presets. It has no filler, but it is a dense run-on list rather than a structured summary, slightly reducing readability.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is a high-level summary. It covers the main purpose but lacks behavioral details, prerequisite information, and enough context to fully predict tool behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the preset dimensions already present in the platform parameter description and adds no new semantics for parameters like fit, quality, or output_path. It barely supplements the schema.

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 explicitly states a specific action ('Resize, format, and optimize') and a precise resource (images with industry presets for named platforms with dimensions). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like strip_photo_metadata and apply_watermark, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for resizing images to platform-specific dimensions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide any exclusions. The context is clear, yet no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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