prepare_publication_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses major behavioral traits: local code-only operation, no provider calls, and the difference between resizing vs metadata-only when print dimensions are omitted. However, it does not state whether the original file is overwritten, where the output goes, or if existing files are modified, which is important for a tool that resizes images.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence followed by only the most essential caveats and a terse parameter note. No sentence is wasted, and the layout makes key behavior easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and missing descriptions for half of them. The description does not explain output_path behavior, upscaling implications, aspect ratio handling, or explicit selection criteria versus sibling tools, leaving notable gaps for an agent to operate reliably.

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?

The description adds meaning for width_mm/height_mm (final print size), target_dpi (metadata value), and output_format (raster delivery type). But schema coverage is 0%, and parameters like image_path, output_path, allow_upscale, and preserve_aspect_ratio receive no explanation beyond their titles/defaults, leaving the agent to infer their semantics.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and object: 'Resize a raster image and write publication DPI metadata using code only.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling generation tools by stating it 'never calls image-generation providers,' so the agent knows this is a local post-processing operation.

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 description gives concrete usage direction: pass width_mm and/or height_mm to truly meet 600 DPI, and explains the fallback behavior without print size. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'code only' and 'never calls image-generation providers' context helps disambiguate from generation-focused siblings.

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