crop_to_selection

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 indicates that cropping occurs and reports the applied crop region, but it does not disclose that cropping is a destructive canvas mutation, whether the change can be undone, or what happens to existing layers or image state.

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 short and front-loads the main action before listing parameters and return values. The parameter defaults repeat the schema, but the structure remains efficient and appropriate for a two-parameter tool.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameter meanings, and return shape without requiring an output schema. However, it omits the selection prerequisite, the destructive nature of cropping, and guidance against the closely related crop_to_rect sibling.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: autocrop means auto-detect crop bounds instead of using the selection, and image_index selects the target image. The image_index explanation is thin, but overall the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: crop the image canvas to the current selection bounds. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from the sibling crop_to_rect or explain how it relates to selection tools.

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 phrase "current selection bounds" and by the autocrop parameter, which says to auto-detect bounds instead of using the selection. The description does not explicitly say when to choose this versus crop_to_rect, nor does it state prerequisites such as having an active selection.

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