layer_resize_to_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the operation. It does not disclose whether the resize is destructive to existing layer content, what happens to pixels outside the new boundary, or any session/auth requirements for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it is arguably too terse given the missing information.

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 zero parameter documentation the description is not complete enough. It omits prerequisites, side effects, and parameter meaning that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters (session_id, layer_id) have 0% schema description coverage and are not mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no meaning for their format or valid values. The description could easily have clarified that layer_id targets the layer whose boundary is resized.

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 (resize) and resource (layer boundary) with a clear target (the current image canvas), so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling layer_resize, which an agent would reasonably consider an alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an active session or selected layer), and no mention of when to prefer this over layer_resize or document_resize. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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