krita_resize_imageResize the canvas by cropping or expanding without scaling content, using x/y offset to place the original canvas within the new bounds.
Resize the canvas without scaling content (crop or expand). x/y is the offset of the old canvas inside the new one (negative crops).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (no scaling, crop/expand, offset meaning) but omits details such as background fill on expansion, effect on layers, or whether the operation is reversible. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and zero waste. The key constraint (no scaling) is stated first, and the offset semantics are added succinctly.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is incomplete. Width/height semantics are unclear, and the effect on existing canvas content (background fill, layer behavior) is not addressed. An agent cannot reliably infer correct usage without additional information.
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 explains x/y as offset but leaves width and height entirely unexplained. The default of 0 for width/height is ambiguous (current size? delta?), creating risk of misuse. Only half the parameters are clarified.
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 action (resize canvas) and the key distinction from scaling: 'without scaling content (crop or expand)'. It also explains the x/y offset, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from the sibling krita_scale_image.
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 the usage context (resizing canvas without scaling content) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It could have directed the agent to krita_scale_image for scaling content, but this is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.