page_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it does disclose real side effects: all content moves together, the page keeps its 0,0 top-left, background rects are resized and connectors follow. However it never explains what the `preview` flag does (whether it mutates or merely reports), which is the most important behavioral question for a mutating tool.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the margin format. No filler, though the second sentence's list of internals is slightly packed.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resize behavior and margin syntax but leaves doc_id and preview undocumented and gives no guidance on selection versus page_resize.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It handles `margin` well (one number, [vertical, horizontal], or [top, right, bottom, left], in user units) and clarifies `ids`, but says nothing about `doc_id` or `preview`.

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 ('Resize the page to fit the drawing') plus the scoping variant ('or only ids'). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling page_resize, which is the tool an agent must distinguish it from.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer page_resize over this fit operation, nor when to pass ids versus resizing the whole page. Usage must be inferred entirely from the wording.

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