clip_crop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add that the crop happens without scaling, which is useful, but it does not state what happens to the original media, whether the operation mutates the input or creates a new output, what the output format is, or how coordinate origin works. This is a material gap for a media-processing tool.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core operation and the scaling behavior immediately. It could benefit from more structure, but as a concise statement it is well-formed.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too minimal for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing about input format, return value, coordinate origin, side effects, or relation to sibling media tools. A usable definition would need to specify what input is expected, what the crop does with x/y/width/height, and what output or state change results.

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 undocumented parameters. It only mentions a 'given rectangle' and 'without scaling,' providing essentially no detail about what input is, what x and y represent, how width and height are interpreted, or what values are valid. The schema provides types and constraints, but the description adds almost no semantic meaning beyond that.

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 to a given rectangle without scaling. It clearly communicates the spatial nature of the operation and the lack of resizing, which helps distinguish it from temporal operations like clip_trim. However, it does not explicitly identify what 'input' refers to, which leaves some ambiguity.

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 gives a clear operation but no guidance on when to choose clip_crop over sibling tools. It does not mention that clip_crop is spatial while clip_trim is temporal, nor does it explain when scaling would be needed. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.

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