Adjust a sketch’s canvas dimensions by selecting a preset or specifying explicit width and height in pixels.
Change the canvas dimensions of a sketch using a preset or explicit width/height
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | Explicit width in pixels | |
| height | No | Explicit height in pixels | |
| preset | No | Canvas preset name | |
| sketchId | Yes | ID of the sketch to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says "Change" (a mutation) but never discloses side effects: whether existing artwork scales or clips, whether the change is reversible, or whether preset overrides explicit width/height. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a real gap.
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 filler; every clause earns its place by naming the resource and the two input modes.
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?
Adequate for a four-parameter tool whose schema is fully described, but the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves behavioral questions unanswered, and the description does not clarify how preset and width/height interact.
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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description only echoes the preset vs explicit width/height distinction without adding constraints such as mutual exclusivity or units beyond the schema's "in pixels."
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 ("Change the canvas dimensions of a sketch") and names the two supported modes (preset or explicit width/height). It is clear on its own, though it never references siblings or clarifies scope relative to other sketch tools.
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 phrase "using a preset or explicit width/height" implies how to invoke it but not when to choose it over alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an open sketch. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.