images_crop

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

The description explicitly asserts the operation is 'non-destructively' applied and that 'the original image href and geometry remain unchanged', while the annotation declares destructiveHint=true. An agent reading both signals cannot tell whether data loss or irreversible state change occurs, so the description directly conflicts with the structured safety hint.

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?

A single dense sentence with the operation and its key behavioral property front-loaded and no filler. It is compact, though the semicolon-clause makes it slightly information-dense rather than plainly readable.

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 9-required-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin: it omits parameter meaning, coordinate-space details, revision-conflict behavior, and any routing guidance among clips/masks/images siblings. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the invocation surface remains largely unexplained.

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% across nine required parameters, so the description bears full responsibility, and it explains almost nothing: only the phrase 'local user-space clipPath' hints that x/y/width/height are in local user-space coordinates. It says nothing about clipId, imageId, workspaceId, path, or the meaning of expectedRevision (evidently an optimistic-concurrency token).

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 and resource ('Crops one SVG image') plus the mechanism used (applying a new local user-space clipPath). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with adjacent siblings like images_manage, clips_manage, or masks_manage.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of which situations warrant cropping versus managing clips directly, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

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