set_grid_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Elements outside new bounds are removed,' which is a critical side effect, but doesn't cover other aspects like whether this operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects other level properties. More context on the mutation's impact is needed.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and a crucial side effect. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and a key behavioral trait but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error handling, leaving gaps for safe agent use.

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 100%, with both parameters ('width' and 'height') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond implying the parameters define new grid dimensions, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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') and resource ('the level grid'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_level' or 'clear_region' that might also affect grid elements, though the core action is distinct.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active level), exclusions, or related tools like 'clear_level' for full resets, leaving usage context implied at best.

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