document_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation affects all layers, which is useful scope information, but it omits whether the change is destructive/undoable, what resampling or interpolation is used, and what permissions or session state are required.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope stated up front and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though there is little structured detail to front-load.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description should cover session requirements and the irreversible/side-effect profile of scaling all layers; those gaps leave it incomplete.

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 there are three required parameters. The description only echoes width and height (whose names are already self-explanatory) and says nothing about session_id, the units, constraints, or behavior on non-integer/odd values.

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 (scale) and resource (full image and all layers), which is clearer than a bare name. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling document_resize, leaving the agent unsure which operation to pick. Scope is stated but the resize/scale distinction is left unresolved.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus document_resize or the layer_resize tools. Nothing indicates prerequisites such as an active session or when scaling is preferable to resizing.

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