crop_image

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the return format and clarifies the input is an existing file, but does not discuss edge cases like out-of-bounds crop boxes or auto-generated output path behavior, which would be valuable context.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a compact Args section, and a clear Returns section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 relatively simple crop operation, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return value. Annotations provide safety and idempotency. Missing error-handling notes are a minor gap, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is not a major deficiency.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by summarizing the nested params object into 'source path, crop box (left/top/width/height), output path'. This adds semantic grouping beyond the flat schema, although the schema itself provides detailed property descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('crop') and resource ('existing image file') with a clear outcome ('rectangular sub-region'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like screenshot or image capture tools, which operate on displays rather than files.

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 by stating the operation, but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance nor mentions alternatives. It is functionally clear but does not help the agent choose among competing image-related tools.

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