resize_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface the most important trait: shrinking discards blocks outside the new bounds, which makes the tool destructive. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the operation is undoable, whether growing pads with air, or what happens on invalid sizes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive caveat efficiently parenthesized; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter mutation tool, but there is 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?

An output schema covers the return value, but for a destructive, four-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the description leaves out parameter meanings, preconditions, and error behavior. An agent could call it, but not confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that size_x/size_y/size_z define the new bounding box, but it never explains the 'name' parameter or the unit/constraint semantics of the dimensions, leaving half the intent to inference from parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (change the size of a structure) and adds the key side effect that blocks outside the new size are dropped. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like new_structure or copy_region, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to resize versus recreating a structure with new_structure or how resizing interacts with other edits. The only implied usage cue is the truncation warning, which tells the agent to be careful but not when to pick this tool.

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