crop_square

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

With no annotations, the description bears the behavioral burden. It does explain that the crop keeps the largest possible square and that the anchor determines which part of the frame survives, including the center default. However, it does not disclose what backend or quality do, whether files are overwritten, or what side effects occur beyond writing output.

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 compact and front-loaded. The main action appears in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying the anchor parameter. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for a simple crop operation: it states the core behavior and the key anchor option. But with five parameters and no annotations, important details like backend and quality semantics are missing, and no usage context versus sibling tools is provided. The presence of an output schema lowers the burden for return-value documentation.

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 for the schema's silence. It adds helpful semantics for anchor by enumerating valid values and the default. It leaves backend and quality completely unexplained, and input_path/output_path relationships are only implicit from the tool's name.

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 action and resource: 'Crop to the largest possible square.' It also adds meaningful detail about the anchor parameter. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like crop_to_aspect or crop_image, but the square-only behavior is reasonably distinctive.

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 guidance on when to use crop_square versus the many sibling cropping/resizing tools. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent select this tool over crop_to_aspect, crop_image, or adjust_image.

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