batch_resize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return payload and how conflicting parameters resolve, which is real value. It omits mutation semantics that matter here: whether images are resized in place versus copied, whether the operation is undoable, and what happens when no images are open or no sizing parameter is supplied.

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 purpose sentence, then a compact bulleted parameter block, then a returns line — no filler. The Returns line earns its place because there is no output schema.

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?

Given four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: sizing options, precedence, default, and response shape. It falls short only on the zero-parameter case and on in-place/undo behavior for a destructive bulk operation.

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%, so the description must do all the work, and it largely does: width/height units in pixels, scale_factor as a proportional multiplier with an example, its override precedence, and the meaning of maintain_aspect. The gap is that all four parameters are optional and the description never states the behavior when none are provided.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Resize') with an explicit scope ('all open images'), which separates it from the single-image siblings like scale_image and scale_to_fit. It stops short of a 5 because no sibling is named, so the agent must infer that scale_image is the per-image counterpart.

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?

It communicates precedence rules inside the invocation ('scale_factor ... overrides width/height if set') and the aspect-ratio default, which is genuine usage guidance for choosing among parameters. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over scale_image, scale_to_fit, or batch_export, and gives no prerequisites such as needing images open.

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