Ajustar documento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects: whether resizing resamples or crops pixels, whether canvas resize destroys content, whether profile conversion is reversible, or what permissions are needed. It is purely an enumeration of capabilities for a mutation tool.

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 that enumerates the capabilities without filler. Dense and efficient, though the enumeration is a bare list rather than organized by operation type.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects (resizeImage, resizeCanvas), no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence capability list is thin. It omits parameter-level behavior, side effects, and interaction between conflicting options (e.g. trim vs resize), leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it 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 description coverage is only 8% (just the 'doc' param), so the description must compensate, and it does map most parameter categories to natural language (image/canvas size, resolution, mode, depth, convert/assign profile, crop, rotate, guides). However it adds no detail on units, formats, or enum meanings, leaving the 12 parameters still largely undocumented.

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 verb ('Cambia') and resource ('la configuración del documento') and enumerates the concrete settings it touches (image/canvas size, resolution, mode, depth, profile, crop, rotate, guides). An agent can distinguish it from the read-only ps_document_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only says what the tool changes; it gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g. ps_document_info for reading, ps_selection for crop-by-selection), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the parameter list.

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