resize_page

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful implementation detail: it writes both section size and pageSize object, and mentions Desktop persistence ('sticks in Desktop'). It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing settings, but the mechanism is transparent enough for a simple resize.

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 two sentences long, with the main purpose in the first sentence and implementation/alternative in the second. No wasted words, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 parameterized tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and alternative. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but those are not typically needed for a resize operation. The context is adequate and complete for typical use.

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 covers width, height, and page, with reportSessionId lacking a description (75% coverage). The description doesn't add extra parameter semantics beyond restating that width and height are in pixels, which the schema already includes. It does not clarify reportSessionId, but this is acceptable given the coverage is moderate.

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 tool's function: resizing a page's canvas to explicit pixel dimensions. It specifies the resource (page's canvas) and the action (resize), and immediately distinguishes itself from set_canvas_preset by mentioning named presets.

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 explicitly directs users to set_canvas_preset when they need named presets, implying this tool is for explicit width/height values. This provides a clear when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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