resize_canvas

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavior: content is not scaled, and offsets shift existing content. It omits other important traits — what happens to content when the canvas shrinks (clipping/cropping), units, and whether the operation is undoable.

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 tight sentences with the key constraint front-loaded in capitals. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (no scaling) comes first.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description covers the core behavioral distinction but leaves units, offset direction/origin, and shrink behavior unstated. It is adequate to select the tool but thin for invoking 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 0%, so all four parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only partially compensates: it explains that offsets shift existing content, giving some meaning to x_offset/y_offset, but says nothing about the units or acceptable range of width/height or how the offsets are measured (from which origin, in which direction).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Change the canvas size') and immediately scopes it with 'WITHOUT scaling content', which cleanly separates it from a sibling like scale_image. It stops short of naming the alternative tool, so the agent must infer the routing rather than being told.

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 'WITHOUT scaling content' clause implies when this tool is appropriate versus a scaling tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no alternative is named. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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