resize_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning any side effects (e.g., impact on child nodes), constraints (e.g., non-destructive behavior), or error conditions (e.g., invalid nodeId).

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 under-specified rather than concisely informative. The single sentence merely restates the tool name, providing no additional value, which is closer to a placeholder than a useful description.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether width/height are absolute values, whether proportions are preserved, or what happens to child nodes. The 100% schema coverage helps but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions ('New width', 'New height', 'The ID of the node to resize'). The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Resize a node in Figma' is essentially a grammatical restatement of the tool name 'resize_node'. It adds only the context 'in Figma' but does not differentiate from sibling tools or provide any scope or specifics beyond the name.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_node or set_layout_sizing. The description offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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