photoshop_resize_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the primary action ('resize the active image') and the document_id safety mechanism, but doesn't mention whether it changes the canvas vs. the image layer, whether content is scaled or stretched, whether the document is saved, whether it is undoable, or whether the original image is replaced irreversibly. The document_id description does add useful behavioral context about retargeting prevention.

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 main description is a single crisp, front-loaded sentence. The document_id parameter description is slightly verbose ('so a UI tab switch cannot retarget the edit') but it earns its place by explaining the safety mechanism. Overall compact and scannable.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-required-parameter operation: size inputs are clear and the optional document_id shows awareness of targeting ambiguity. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally mention whether this mutates irreversibly, whether the aspect ratio is preserved or forced, and what 'active image' means when multiple documents are open. These gaps keep it at minimum viable.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond calling them 'specified dimensions,' but that's acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 ('resize') and resource ('active image') with clear outcome ('to specified dimensions'). Differentiates by targeting the active image, distinct from photoshop_crop_document and photoshop_scale_layer, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Implies usage: it acts on the active image, and the document_id parameter suggests one should use photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents when targeting a specific document. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over photoshop_crop_document or photoshop_scale_layer, which are the most similar siblings.

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