page_resize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that anchor='center' keeps the drawing centered, that top-left/none leave content in place, and that backgrounds are resized. But it omits critical mutation details: whether the operation is destructive, what happens to content falling outside the new page, how preview behaves, and any permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded: it begins with the core action, then covers anchor behavior and background resizing. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core operation and anchor semantics well. It remains incomplete because doc_id and preview are undocumented, and broader side effects or safety behavior are not described.

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 adds meaning for width, height, and anchor, including units and mode semantics, but leaves doc_id and preview unexplained. Partial compensation for three of five parameters justifies a middle score.

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 states a specific verb and resource: setting the page size in user units. It includes a concrete A4/mm example, making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling page_fit tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 explains the anchor options but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as page_fit or layout. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context to help an agent choose correctly.

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