Resize an existing image inside a Word .docx by selecting its picture index and specifying new width or height in inches or centimeters.
Mengubah ukuran (resize) gambar yang sudah ada di dokumen berdasarkan indeks gambar (Inches atau Cm)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width_cm | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| height_cm | No | ||
| width_inches | No | ||
| height_inches | No | ||
| picture_index | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and leaves key traits unstated: whether aspect ratio is preserved, what happens when only one of width/height is supplied (the schema defaults all four dimension params to null), and what occurs on an out-of-range picture index. Units are mentioned, which is the only behavioral detail added.
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 opens with the action and immediately names the resource and selection key. The parenthetical '(resize)' gloss is slight redundancy in an otherwise waste-free line.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is too thin. The output schema removes the need to document return values, but the null-default semantics, required file_path role, and error/aspect-ratio behavior remain undocumented.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only touches picture_index and the unit choice (Inches or Cm), leaving file_path, the four individually named dimension parameters, and the significance of their null defaults unexplained. Partial compensation only.
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 / 'mengubah ukuran') and resource (an existing picture in the document), and identifies the selection key (picture index). The picture-vs-table distinction from sibling resize_table_docx is carried by the name, but the description never explicitly routes between them.
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?
'gambar yang sudah ada di dokumen' implies the picture must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as add_picture_docx or get_images_info_docx for discovering the index. This matches the 'no guidance' band rather than 'implied usage'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.