layer_resize

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that pixels are not scaled, which is a non-obvious and important trait. However, it omits mutation/reversibility details, session or permission requirements, and how offset_x/offset_y affect the operation, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation and its key constraint immediately, which is an efficient structure for an agent scanning tool definitions.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, this is a mutation tool with six undocumented parameters and no annotations. The description omits parameter meanings, usage context, and permission/reversibility basics, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 six parameters, including required session_id, layer_id, width, and height. The description mentions none of them, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema names and does nothing to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 (a layer boundary), and adds the key constraint 'without scaling its pixels' to distinguish it from scaling operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings such as layer_resize_to_image or document_scale, so the agent must infer when this specific resize is appropriate.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention when this tool should be chosen over layer_resize_to_image, document_resize, or transform_layer. The agent receives no routing help beyond the core purpose.

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