resize_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses z-layer repadding, existing tile retention, blank new cells, cropping behavior, and the warning about events outside new bounds—all beyond what the schema conveys.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/behavior, critical alternative distinction, and warning behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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 is very complete for a resize operation, covering what happens to tile data and events. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly mention what the tool returns (no output schema exists), but given the schema documents dryRun's diff behavior, this is a small omission.

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 adds behavioral context for width/height (e.g., new cells blank, cropping) but does not deeply elaborate on dryRun or parameter syntax, relying on the schema for those details.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Resize a map to new width/height'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting update_map refuses a width/height change, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'This is the ONLY safe way to change a map's dimensions' and names the alternative (update_map) while explaining why it won't work. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus update_map.

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