resize_visual

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation and object but does not disclose side effects, behavior when width/height are null, or prerequisites like the visual existing. It does not contradict any annotations because none exist.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words or extraneous detail. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not cover behavior with null width/height, the effect of partial resizing, or validation of the existing visual. The presence of required session/page/visual identifiers without explanation leaves gaps.

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%, and the description only hints at 'width/height' without explaining allowed values, units, or the meaning of null defaults. The required parameters reportSessionId, pageName, and visualName are not elaborated either, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resize' and identifies the resource as 'existing visual' with the target outcome 'new width/height'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'resize_page' and 'set_visual_position'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'resize_page' or 'align_visuals'. It simply states what it does, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent's inference.

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