resize_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so richly: repadding every z-layer, preserving tiles on overlap, blank new cells, cropping on shrink, and warning about events outside new bounds. It stops short of stating whether warned events are deleted or kept, and does not confirm the write-to-disk/commit behavior beyond the dryRun param.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the core action with precise overlap/crop semantics, the critical alternative contrast, and the event-warning behavior. Dense and front-loaded with zero fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by thoroughly covering behavioral complexity (z-layer repadding, overlap/crop semantics, the only-safe-route contrast, event warnings). It does not explicitly describe the response summary/record shape or confirm immediate persistence, but the verbose parameter in the schema partially covers return behavior.

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% — all 5 parameters (mapId, width, height, dryRun, verbose) have their own descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's "new width/height" adds little beyond the schema's "New width/height in tiles," and dryRun/verbose semantics are fully documented in the schema itself.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: "Resize a map to new width/height, safely repadding every z-layer of its tile data." It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings: "This is the ONLY safe way to change a map's dimensions — update_map refuses a width/height change because it would not resize the tile array."

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "This is the ONLY safe way to change a map's dimensions," and names the specific alternative (update_map) and why it is unsuitable for this purpose. The note about event warnings also clarifies a behavioral condition users should expect.

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