Change a sprite's canvas size by providing a file path and new width and height, preserving the existing artwork.
Resize an existing sprite's canvas in place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'in place', implying mutation, but does not explain what happens to existing pixel data (crop, pad, scale), whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, tight sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, and the key action is front-loaded. This is exemplary conciseness for a simple tool.
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?
For a simple resize operation with three parameters, the description is thin. It does not explain what happens to the sprite's content, whether the operation is destructive, or any prerequisites. The output schema exists but is not shown, and without annotations, the agent lacks critical safety and behavior context. The description is incomplete for a mutation tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely implies that width and height are the new canvas dimensions, but it does not explain the 'path' parameter at all. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names and does not cover units, constraints, or format.
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 action (resize) and the target (an existing sprite's canvas). It distinguishes from siblings like create_sprite because it explicitly says 'existing sprite', implying modification rather than creation. However, it does not name any alternative tools or provide contrast, so it falls short of the highest tier.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The only implicit hint is that it is for resizing, but there is no explicit routing or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.