image_fit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this mutates the document, whether it is undoable, whether it requires the image/frame to be selected or merely addressed by page/item index, or what happens to image proportions.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. However, the extreme brevity leaves real specification gaps that a slightly longer description could close without becoming verbose.

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, four parameters at 25% coverage, and a mutation-like effect on document content, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how to address the target image/frame, what the fitting modes do, or what to expect afterward.

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 only 25% (only document_id is documented), and the description adds nothing about fitting, itemIndex, or pageIndex. The five enum values (fill, proportional, fitContentToFrame, fitFrameToContent, center) are self-describing labels but their distinct effects are never explained, so the compensation required at low coverage is absent.

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?

"Fit image content to its frame" names a specific verb (fit) and resource (image content/frame), so the operation is identifiable. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like image_adjust or image_place, leaving overlap ambiguity about which tool to use for frame/image sizing.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of image_adjust, image_place, or transform_scale, and no mention of prerequisites such as the image needing to be placed or a frame selected. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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