resize_nodes

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

Annotations indicate destructive and read-write behavior. The description adds that width/height are applied independently to each node and that either or both can be provided, but does not detail side effects like constraint handling or undo behavior.

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?

Two sentences convey the core action and key constraints without any unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 three parameters fully described in the schema and annotations present, the description covers the main behavior. However, it omits edge cases like empty nodeIds or error handling, and does not mention output or side effects beyond destructive hint.

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 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by stating that width, height, or both can be provided (clarifying optionality beyond schema) and that the same values apply to all nodes, which is not in schema.

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', the resource 'one or more nodes', and specifies that the same width/height is applied independently. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_nodes or rotate_nodes.

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 implies usage for resizing nodes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_style_to_node or scale operations. No when-not or alternative tool names are provided.

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