resize_node

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

No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral load. It discloses non-obvious behavior: WIDTH_AND_HEIGHT hug refuses resize, hug auto-promotes to HEIGHT when only width is passed, and forceFixed forces textAutoResize NONE — all real behavioral traits beyond the schema. Doesn't cover permissions, errors, or side effects, hence 4 not 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then conditional TEXT rules, then the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tricky TEXT auto-resize semantics, edge cases (hug refuses resize), and the sibling alternative. Missing: behavior on non-TEXT nodes, whether the wrapper is allowed, and error cases, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 40% and only forceFixed/textAutoResize have schema descriptions. The description compensates well by explaining what width/height, textAutoResize values (WIDTH_AND_HEIGHT vs HEIGHT vs NONE) do and the hug auto-promotion behavior, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Still incomplete for TRUNCATE and nodeId.

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+resource ('Resize a node') and immediately distinguishes from sibling resize_to_fit by describing exact behavior, plus names set_layout_sizing as the preferred alternative for HUG/FILL. An agent can disambiguate from siblings like resize_to_fit and set_layout_sizing without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the TEXT/auto-resize case and explicitly routes to set_layout_sizing for HUG/FILL. Doesn't spell out when-not to use this tool generally (e.g. vs resize_to_fit, or for non-node contexts), but the alternative routing is explicit.

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