resize_image

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that proportions are preserved and only one side need be passed, but says nothing about units, what happens if both width and height are supplied, whether the change is undoable, or what the result looks like.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the constraint trailing. No filler, though the colon-fragment style is terse to the point of being cryptic about 'pass one side'.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more. It covers the core aspect-ratio behavior but leaves the project parameter, units, error/edge cases, and the relationship to resize_canvas and upscale unresolved.

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 0% across three parameters. The description compensates for width/height by stating 'pass one side', implying mutual exclusivity, but adds nothing about units or the 'project' parameter. That leaves a significant semantic gap on a 3-param tool.

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 clear verb+resource (scale the whole document, canvas and content) and adds the scope that distinguishes it from a canvas-only operation. It doesn't name the sibling it is contrasted with (resize_canvas, upscale), so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'whole document (canvas and content)' implies when to use it versus resize_canvas, but no alternative is named and no when-not guidance is given. With resize_canvas, crop_canvas, expand_canvas, and upscale all present, the agent is left to infer the routing.

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