resize_to_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses aspect-ratio preservation, centering, letterboxing/cropping per fit mode, and the shrink-wrap side effect. It omits privilege requirements, reversibility, and what happens to children/position in mode 1, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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 dense sentences that lead with the purpose, then enumerate the modes in priority order. No filler; every clause maps to a distinct behavior an agent needs.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers both operating modes and their visual outcomes thoroughly. Minor gaps remain around side effects (does mode 1 reposition the node, how are children affected) but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 100% and each of the three parameters already has a description that mirrors the prose (fit enum values, nodeId, targetNodeId omit-to-shrink-wrap). The description adds only marginal framing over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fit a layer') and immediately enumerates the two distinct operations (scale-to-target vs shrink-wrap-to-children). An agent can distinguish this from sibling resize_node or set_layout_sizing without opening the schema, since the two modes are named and their semantics spelled out.

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 explicit mode-selection rules: pass targetNodeId for fitting inside another layer, omit it for shrink-wrapping to own children, plus the contain-vs-cover trade-off. It never names or contrasts alternative tools (e.g. resize_node), so a true 5 for alternatives is not met.

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