figma_resize_node

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It discloses nothing about side effects (e.g., whether resizing overwrites existing dimensions), units of measurement, whether changes are reversible, or any constraints on the operation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short, but under-specification is not conciseness. The single sentence 'Resize a node' provides no operational detail and could apply to any resizing API. A concise, useful description would include key constraints or usage hints.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an extremely minimal description. It lacks all contextual information needed for an agent to safely invoke it, such as whether it requires a selected node, what happens on failure, and how the parameters interact. Clearly incomplete.

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% and the description provides no parameter explanations. While the property names (nodeId, width, height) are somewhat self-evident, the description doesn't clarify units, bounds, or relationships (e.g., whether aspect ratio is preserved). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Resize a node' is a clear verb+resource but essentially restates the tool name, offering no additional context about what resizing involves or how it differs from sibling mutation tools. It is more informative than a pure tautology like 'Process' but still minimal.

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 guidance is provided. The description doesn't state when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., node must exist), or alternatives (such as set_constraints or move_node for similar layout operations).

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