resize_canvas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important trait (content is not scaled, only the canvas changes) and hints at anchor behavior, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to layers/artboards outside the new bounds, or how the current project is selected.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint, with no filler. The trailing ellipsis in the anchor list is a minor sloppiness that leaves the reader unsure whether the enumeration is complete.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine units, default anchor behavior, permission requirements, or how this differs from sibling canvas/resize operations.

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 partially documents 'anchor' by listing example values (center, top, bottom_left, ...), which is genuinely additive since the schema has no enum, but the list is truncated and never explains what an anchor does. Width/height units (pixels vs. percent) and the 'project' parameter are entirely undocumented.

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 ('Change canvas size') and immediately adds the key differentiator 'without scaling content', which separates it from resize_image. However, it does not name the closest siblings (crop_canvas, expand_canvas) or explain how it differs from them, so the agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named. The clause 'without scaling content' hints at the differentiator from resize_image but does not tell the agent when to pick this over crop_canvas or expand_canvas, which are adjacent in the sibling list.

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