Normalize viewBox

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

Annotations provide minimal info (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds rich behavior: idempotency for valid viewBox, synthesis/recovery for absent/malformed, reversibility on working copy, return shape with diff, and risk warning. 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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, key params, return shape, example, risk warning. Every sentence adds value and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, when to use, behavior, return, risk, and references to siblings. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has 1 param (doc_id) with 0% description coverage. Description mentions 'Key params: none beyond doc_id', acknowledging the parameter but adding no further details about its type or usage. For a single simple parameter, this is adequate but minimal added value.

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 normalizes/repairs the root viewBox. It specifies the action and resource, and distinguishes from siblings fit_to_content and resize_canvas by naming them as alternatives for different purposes.

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?

Explicitly states 'When to use: tidying/repairing a missing or malformed root viewBox.' and provides when-not-to-use guidance with alternative tool names, offering clear context for selection.

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