Resize Document

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

The description claims the operation is destructive ('This is a destructive operation'), but the annotations explicitly set destructiveHint to false. This is a contradiction, making the description misleading about the tool's safety profile.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, behavior, and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: canvas resize, proportional scaling of all layers, and ability to undo. It lacks details on resampling method or cropping behavior, but overall sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for width and height. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'resize' and the resource 'active document canvas', with specific details on pixel dimensions and resampling. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like transform_layer which operate on individual layers.

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 provides clear context for usage: it's for resizing the entire document canvas, scaling all layers. It mentions that it's destructive and suggests using undo. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like transform_layer.

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