scale_image

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope ('whole image, all layers'), but never states that this is a mutating, resampling operation, whether the original pixel data is lost or undoable, or how it interacts with vector/text layers.

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 action and scope, with no filler. The dense method enumeration is slightly awkward inline but every value listed is necessary given the empty schema.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema the description is broadly adequate, but it omits units for width/height and says nothing about irreversibility or layer-type effects, which matter for a destructive resample of the entire document.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for 'method' by enumerating eight accepted values and flagging NearestNeighbor for pixel art, but adds nothing for width/height beyond the names — no units, no aspect-ratio behavior, no constraint that the schema omits.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Scale the whole image (all layers) to a new size') and the '(all layers)' scope helps distinguish it from transform_layer or layer-level operations. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as resize_canvas or upscale_image, which an agent would need to choose between.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus resize_canvas, upscale_image, or crop_image. The only usage hint is the parenthetical '(pixel art)' attached to NearestNeighbor, which guides method selection rather than tool selection.

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