scale_image

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states the return shape and the interpolation default, but never says whether scaling distorts aspect ratio, whether it is destructive, whether it applies to the active image or a specific image, or how layers are affected.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact parameter list and a return-shape line; every element is scannable. Minor redundancy in restating defaults that already appear in the schema's default fields, but the interpolation enumeration earns its place.

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?

The description covers inputs and the return shape, which is reasonable given there is no output schema. For a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, however, it omits the important behavioral facts: aspect-ratio handling, destructiveness, and which image the operation targets.

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 0% – properties carry only titles and defaults – so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines units in pixels for width/height and enumerates the interpolation options ("cubic", "linear", "none"), which the schema does not. The image_index explanation is thinner, leaving unclear what index space it refers to when multiple images are open.

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?

"Scale an image to exact pixel dimensions" gives a specific verb and resource, and the word "exact" hints at forced, possibly non-proportional scaling versus a fit-to-box sibling. It does not name scale_to_fit or resize_canvas, so the agent must infer the distinction from the qualifier alone.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling is named. Usage is only implied by "exact pixel dimensions," which suggests this is the tool for forcing a specific size rather than preserving aspect ratio.

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