trim_sprite

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the cropping logic (bounding box of non-transparent content across every frame), which is transparent about the behavior. It does not mention destructiveness or reversibility, but the core action is well explained.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key conditions. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior sufficiently. It could mention whether the operation is destructive or affects layers, but overall provides adequate context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% for the single parameter 'filename', and the description does not explain what filename refers to (presumably the sprite identifier). The agent must infer meaning from context, so the description fails to add value beyond the parameter 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 auto-crops the canvas to the bounding box of non-transparent content across all frames, using a specific verb (auto-crop) and resource (canvas). It distinguishes from siblings like crop_sprite (likely manual) and resize_canvas.

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 when needing to remove empty space around content, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like crop_sprite or mention prerequisites. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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