pixel_scale_canvas

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

The description adds detail beyond annotations: nearest-neighbor sampling, crispness conditions, return format including optional preview, and error message. Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and description aligns without contradiction.

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?

The description is concise with four sentences, each serving a purpose: action, quality conditions, return value, error handling. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers key aspects: algorithm, quality trade-offs, return structure, optional preview, and error handling. It misses explaining in-place modification (implied but not explicit), but annotations fill part of that gap.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters (high coverage), but the description adds value by explaining how width/height ratios affect pixel quality and the preview parameter's effect. This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool rescales canvas and art using nearest-neighbor sampling, and distinguishes itself by specifying the algorithm and crispness conditions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pixel_resize_canvas.

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 description provides context for use in squash-and-stretch animation frames but does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools. It lacks explicit guidance on selection among siblings.

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