ppt_resize_container

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: children are proportionally adjusted/reflowed to maintain padding and prevent overflow. This is valuable. However, with no annotations, the description does not cover additional behavioral aspects such as parameter precedence (e.g., width vs dwidth), whether the presentation is saved, the effect of 'scale_width'/'scale_height', or reversibility. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and its primary side effect. There is no filler or redundant wording; every clause contributes 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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that may provide return details, the description is still far too thin. It does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., how width, dwidth, and scale_width relate), units, or how to choose between absolute and delta sizing. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call without opening the schema and guessing at semantics.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter explanations. The meanings of dwidth/dheight relative to width/height, the scale parameters, and the reflow_children flag are completely undocumented beyond their types and defaults. The description adds zero value in helping an agent choose correct parameter values.

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 clearly states the action: resizing a logical container (card) and proportionally adjusting/reflowing children to maintain padding and prevent overflow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ppt_resize_shape (which resizes a shape without container semantics) and ppt_reflow_container (which only reflows without resizing). However, it doesn't explicitly list which attributes change (width, height, etc.) or how reflow works mechanically.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions that would favor ppt_reflow_container for pure reflow, or ppt_resize_shape for individual shapes. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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