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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real context on top: revision is checked (optimistic concurrency), dryRun defaults to preview, and 'Preserves the other shots' clarifies the blast radius of the destructive flag. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but that's a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight clauses with the core action front-loaded, then the concurrency/preview constraints, then the safety note. No filler, though the fragments are terse enough that a little more parameter detail could have been added without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 7-required-param mutation with nested objects and near-zero schema coverage, the description leaves too much parameter semantics to inference to be fully complete.

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 only 14% (essentially just projectId 'UUID string.'), and there are 7 required params including a nested crop object. The description only touches expectedRevision ('Revision checked') and dryRun; itemId, workspaceId, projectId, idempotencyKey, and the crop coordinate/format semantics are left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Adjust the crop of one existing source view') and scopes it to a single view. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like editor_text_set or editor_audio_set by naming the 'crop' concern, though it doesn't explicitly route against them.

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?

Gives the precondition 'after a layout has been applied' and notes dryRun previews by default, which implies a preview-then-commit workflow. It does not state when to prefer a different sibling or when not to use it.

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