resize_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Resize a node', which is vague. It fails to indicate whether the operation is destructive, whether children are affected, what happens if constraints are violated, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not explain the tool's behavior or parameters, making it underspecified. Conciseness is not helpful when key information is omitted.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and 28 sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, constraints (e.g., nodes must be frames? width/height max?), or how resizing interacts with Figma's layout system. The agent would lack essential context to use the tool effectively.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'resize' and does not clarify expected units, valid ranges, or relationships between width and height. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but adds minimal value.

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 verb 'resize' and the resource 'node in Figma', indicating the action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also modify dimensions, such as 'set_auto_layout' or 'move_node', which could confuse an agent about which tool to use for direct dimension changes.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'set_auto_layout' or 'move_node', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., node type, permissions) or exclusions. An agent would have no context to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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