media-mcp

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 states the tool crops an image and saves it, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions, whether the original file is modified, error handling, or format support. The coordinate explanation is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, a key behavioral note (coordinate system), and a parameter list with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the core functionality first.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, but gaps remain in usage guidelines and transparency.

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 fully. It provides clear semantics for all 6 parameters: path specifies the input file, left/top/right/bottom define the crop region in pixels from top-left, and output_path specifies where to save with a default. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('crop') and resource ('image'), and distinguishes it from siblings like resize_image, rotate_image, or flip_image by specifying it crops to a specific region. The first sentence directly answers what the tool does.

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 like resize_image or create_thumbnail. It mentions coordinate details but doesn't explain use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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