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 adds useful non-obvious behavior: the anchor corner stays fixed, and keep_aspect=False with both dimensions triggers stretching through a slower extension. However, it omits mutation impacts, expected_revision semantics, each/show effects, permissions, undoability, and return behavior.

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, front-loaded with purpose and tightly scoped to useful behavior. The second sentence covers a meaningful edge case without 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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers core geometry behavior and one conditional path, but does not provide enough context for safe invocation across all parameters.

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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies width_mm, height_mm, scale, keep_aspect, and the anchor concept, but leaves ids, each, show, and expected_revision completely undocumented.

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 action, 'Resize', with clearly named outcomes: exact visual width or height, scale factor, and fixed anchor corner. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling operations such as move, align, or distribute, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only conditional guidance is that keep_aspect=False with both width_mm and height_mm stretches the object via a slower extension, which is behavioral detail rather than usage routing.

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