crop_to_rect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the canvas is cropped and lists the returned keys, but never discloses that pixels outside the rectangle are discarded, whether the operation is undoable, how it interacts with multiple images/layers, or what happens if the rectangle exceeds canvas bounds.

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?

Short, front-loaded with the action sentence, then a compact parameter list and a return shape. Every line carries information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters and return keys adequately. It is incomplete on the destructive side of the operation — irreversibility, undo, and multi-image effects — which an agent needs before invoking a canvas crop.

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 supply all parameter meaning, and it does: it defines x/y as the top-left corner, width/height as dimensions, and image_index as the target index with a default of 0. It still omits units (pixels), coordinate origin relative to the image, and behavior for out-of-bounds or non-positive values.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Crop the image canvas') and adds the scoping qualifier 'explicit rectangle', which implicitly separates it from the sibling crop_to_selection. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the agent must infer the distinction from the sibling list.

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: the phrase 'explicit rectangle' hints that this is the coordinate-based alternative to crop_to_selection, but no sentence states when to prefer one over the other. No prerequisites, no note about whether a selection affects the result, and no mention of undo.

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