crop_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers important details: x/y are interpreted in DISPLAYED orientation and out-of-bounds rectangles fail clearly instead of silently clamping. It could disclose overwrite behavior or backend semantics, but the core failure and orientation behavior is well covered.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits backend and quality meaning and does not state whether output_path overwrites existing files, leaving an agent to guess on non-obvious options even though required paths are given in the schema.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for x/y as top-left offsets in displayed orientation and implies width/height are pixel-based, but backend and quality are left unexplained, and input_path/output_path semantics are still only inferable from their names.

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 opens with 'Crop to an exact pixel rectangle', which clearly identifies the operation and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like crop_to_aspect and crop_square by emphasizing exact pixel dimensions, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus crop_to_aspect, crop_square, or other siblings. The phrase 'exact pixel rectangle' implies a use case, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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