smartscale__scale_objects_from_credit_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains parameters and their roles but does not disclose behavior on invalid inputs (e.g., wrong pixel width), whether the tool modifies the image, or what side effects occur. It mentions optional height for distortion check but no details on results.

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 description is concise: a single-line summary in brackets followed by a structured args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

The description explains inputs well but omits output details (no output schema) and workflow context (e.g., need to have taken a photo with a credit card). The sibling tool credit_card_photo_instructions suggests a prerequisite, but this is not mentioned. For a scaling tool, it lacks completeness regarding result expectations.

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 fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: image_id as identifier, credit_card_pixel_width as card pixel width, objects requiring pixel_width/height and optional fields, and optional height for distortion check. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Scale object pixel dimensions using a standard CR80 credit card reference.' It specifies the verb (Scale), resource (objects), and method (using credit card). Sibling tools include only unrelated scaling-like tools (e.g., smartscale__credit_card_photo_instructions is about instructions), so it distinguishes well.

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 implies usage when a photo contains a credit card and objects need scaling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks guidance on workflow integration with sibling tools like credit_card_photo_instructions.

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