set_page_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the default page size, export cropping behavior, invisibility of out-of-bounds shapes, orientation inference, and the shrink/grow behavior of fit_to_contents.

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?

The critical usage caveat is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args section with examples. Every sentence contributes either to when to call it, what it does, or how the parameters behave.

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 five-parameter, no-annotation tool, the description provides strong context about sequencing, units, and alternatives. However, the undocumented 'page' parameter and the absence of any statement about return values or persistence keep it just short of complete.

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 must add parameter meaning. It does so for width_in/height_in (units and an example), orientation (inferred if omitted), and fit_to_contents (explicit behavior), but never mentions the 'page' parameter from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Resize the page') and clarifies the real-world goal (preparing for wide architecture diagrams). This is unambiguous among the sibling list, none of which target page dimensions.

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 gives explicit timing guidance ('Do this BEFORE building a wide architecture diagram') and explains the consequence of skipping it (cropped exports). It does not enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios, but no sibling tool overlaps with this operation.

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