resize_canvas

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

The phrase 'and its content' is a genuinely useful disclosure — the content resizes rather than being cropped or left anchored. But with zero annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden and omits critical traits: whether shrinking is destructive, whether all layers/frames are affected, and whether width and height changes stretch content non-uniformly.

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; the core action, resource, and scope appear immediately. It is appropriately lean, though the terseness itself contributes to the completeness gaps penalized in other dimensions.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 70+ siblings, this is incomplete. Missing are units, filename semantics, destructiveness of shrinking, scope across frames/layers, and any differentiation from crop_canvas — an agent could mis-invoke this on units or confuse it with a crop operation.

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 compensate; it does not. It neither confirms units for width/height (presumably pixels) nor clarifies what filename identifies (a filesystem path vs. a resource identifier), leaving all three required parameters semantically thin despite their self-evident names.

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 action ('Resize'), a precise resource ('sprite canvas'), and the scope of that action ('and its content') — this is a clear verb+resource pairing. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling crop_canvas, which also alters canvas boundaries, so the purpose is clear but sibling distinction is absent.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over crop_canvas, create_canvas, or other canvas-affecting siblings. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned; the agent must infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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