img_add_resize

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects: whether it modifies files in the directory, creates new files, or requires the api_key for an external service. 'Add' implies mutation, but the scope and consequences are unstated.

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 sentence with no filler, and the main function is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but there is no redundancy or structural clutter.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description is too thin: an agent cannot predict what files or configs change, what the api_key is for, or what success looks like. The two-parameter surface is small, but the behavioral and parameter gaps are significant.

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 schema describes directory but not api_key; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the tool name. With 50% schema coverage, the api_key parameter remains entirely unexplained, and directory is not connected to the resizing workflow.

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 names the operation ('Add') and the resource/feature ('image resizing and thumbnail generation'), so the core function is understandable. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools such as img_generate_processor or img_optimize_delivery, so differentiation relies on the name rather than the description.

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?

No guidance is given on when to select this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites must be true (e.g., an existing project in the directory). The only context is the implied act of adding resizing, with no exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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