ps_resize_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: the missing dimension is automatically computed proportionally. However, it does not state what happens when both dimensions are supplied, whether the operation is destructive or resamples pixels, or any constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and target; no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, it provides sufficient context to invoke correctly: target is the current document, dimensions are in pixels, and one parameter can be omitted for proportional scaling. The notable gap is the unspecified behavior when both parameters are provided.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters as pixel target widths/heights (100% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship: only one is required and the other is derived proportionally.

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 uses a specific verb ('调整', adjust) and resource ('当前 Photoshop 文档的像素尺寸', current Photoshop document's pixel dimensions), making the action and target unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like create/open/save/add-layer because it is the only one focused on resizing the active document.

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?

It identifies the active Photoshop document as the target and states the parameter entry pattern ('give either width or height'), which tells the agent how to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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