document_resize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that pixels are not scaled and that offsets position the old image within the new canvas, but it omits whether the operation modifies the session in place, permission requirements, and edge case behavior for resizing to smaller dimensions.

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 tightly written sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the offset behavior as a clarifying second sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations and a 0%-covered input schema, the description covers the main operational distinction and offset meaning but leaves gaps around session requirements, mutation side effects, and what happens when the new canvas is smaller than the old image. The output schema handles return values, so that is not a gap.

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 explains offset_x and offset_y ('position the old image within the new canvas') and implies width/height set the new canvas size, but session_id is not described and width/height semantics rely on inference from the purpose statement.

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 ('Resize') and resource ('canvas'), and the phrase 'without scaling pixels' distinguishes it from a scale operation like document_scale. The distinction is clear, though no sibling tool is named explicitly, so it falls just 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?

The description implies when to use it: to change canvas dimensions without scaling the image content. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as document_scale, document_crop, or state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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