Resize for Variation

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

With annotations covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no text reflow, effects/strokes scale but may need manual adjustment, and proportional placement only. It still omits whether new artboards are created in the document and any repeat-invocation behavior (idempotentHint is already false, so re-running semantics are unclear).

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and caveats grouped into a single Limitations clause. Nothing is repeated across sentences, though the limitations sentence is dense enough that it could be split for readability without adding bulk.

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 output schema, the description covers the transform semantics and its caveats well, but omits key operational facts an agent needs: where resulting variations land (new artboards? layer placement?), the maxItems=10 constraint on target_sizes, and the auto-detected coordinate_system behavior that affects placement. The annotations carry safety but these gaps remain.

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 100%, so all four parameters, including the scale_mode and coordinate_system enums, are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the proportional behavior implied by scale_mode and adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Create size variations from a source artboard') and immediately explains the mechanism ('Duplicates all objects and scales/repositions them proportionally to fit target sizes'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like duplicate_objects or manage_artboards without opening the schema.

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 limitations block implicitly scopes usage (proportional only, no smart layout, no text reflow), which helps an agent judge fit. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition relative to siblings such as duplicate_layer_tree or manage_artboards. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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