Resize columns

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not: widths are in pixels and omission triggers auto-fit to content. It still doesn't state persistence or permission needs, but against existing annotation coverage that is a minor gap.

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 that delivers both branches of behavior with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key semantic gap (width units and default behavior) while annotations cover safety. Missing only peripheral details like required permissions or how multi-column ranges apply a single width.

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 75%, and the one undocumented parameter is the critical 'width' — the description compensates by defining its unit (pixels) and the meaning of omitting it (auto-fit). The remaining unspecified behaviors (e.g., per-column ranges) are minor, so this lands above the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Set column widths') and covers both operating modes (fixed pixels vs. auto-fit). It does not differentiate itself from potential siblings like format_range, which could plausibly touch column sizing, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage and gives an internal condition — omit 'width' to auto-fit — but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over format_range or other layout-affecting siblings, and no prerequisites.

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