armorpaint_set_resolution

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

Annotations carry little weight (all hints false), so the description bears the disclosure burden. It adds one useful behavioral consequence (GPU memory scaling) beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose that downscaling resamples and can permanently discard texture detail, nor that the operation affects the entire project. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, 13 words, with the action front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by conveying a non-obvious consequence of the operation. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and a self-explanatory enum, the description covers the essentials: what is resized and a key side effect. The only notable gap is the lack of warning about data loss when lowering resolution, which would be relevant for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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%, so the description should compensate, but the schema is largely self-documenting: the enum values (128–8192) are self-evidently pixel dimensions and the title is 'Resolution'. The description adds context by tying the parameter to texture maps and noting the memory impact of larger values, though it never states the unit explicitly.

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 and resource ('Resize the project's texture maps'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It is clearly distinguishable from all 40+ siblings, none of which concern resolution or texture-map resizing.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives. However, the second sentence ('Larger maps increase GPU memory use') implies a quality-versus-memory tradeoff that suggests when an agent should consider adjusting this setting, and there is no competing sibling tool to confuse it with.

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