Resize the display

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose two useful side effects the schema cannot: the host window follows the resize, and the screenshot/coordinate space now uses the new size. It says nothing, however, about permissions, failure modes, or whether the change is persisted.

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, with the mutation stated first and its consequences second. Nothing is wasted, and nothing relevant is buried.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It covers the main behavioral consequence well, but it omits units, the id fallback, bounds behavior, and error conditions, for a three-parameter mutation tool with two undocumented numeric parameters.

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 33%: only the id parameter is documented. The description does not explain that width and height are in pixels and does not mention the optional id or its default of 'the single open display.' The only clue is the word 'resolution,' which only implicitly covers the units.

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 and resource: it changes the display resolution. That is clear enough to separate it from siblings like fullscreen or display_open, but the description never explicitly names those alternatives, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 does not say when to prefer this over fullscreen, or what preconditions apply, such as whether a display must already be open or whether resolutions are constrained by the host. The note about the window following is a side effect, not usage guidance.

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