document.resize_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the coordinate system but does not disclose whether x/y/w/h are optional, how missing values are handled, permission requirements, bounds/units, error behavior, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core operation and coordinate context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters where only shape_id is required, the description is too sparse. It leaves important gaps around optional parameters, coordinate origin, units, and expected effects.

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 identifies the four geometry parameters as forming a box in slide coordinates, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not explain shape_id, units, constraints, or the fact that only shape_id is required.

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 and resource: "Set a shape's box (x, y, w, h) in slide coordinates." It is clear what operation is performed and which geometry fields are involved, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like document.move_shape or document.align_shapes.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as document.move_shape, document.align_shapes, or document.set_property. Usage is only implied by the operation itself.

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