slice_grid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the write target (frames/) but says nothing about the mutation semantics — overwrite behavior, the automatic '-2' copy fallback, preview defaults, permission needs, or whether existing assets are affected.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information: the operation, the input kind, and the output location.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits overwrite/naming collision behavior, the effect of preview, the rows/cols limits, and what the caller gets back.

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 coverage is only 38% (inset, names, overwrite are documented; rows, cols, asset, project, preview are not). Since coverage is below 50%, the description is expected to compensate, yet it adds no parameter meaning at all — no bounds on rows/cols, no naming rules, no preview explanation.

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 ('Cut') on a specific resource ('grid image'), and names the outcome ('each cell becomes its own asset in frames/'). The source qualifier '(from task grid/animation)' separates it from video_to_frames and build_spritesheet, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parenthetical source '(from task grid/animation)', which tells the agent what kind of asset is expected. There is no statement of when to prefer this over build_spritesheet (the inverse operation) or what must exist beforehand.

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