crop_image_to_square

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly explains the crop method, output size, output format, and the fact that it is a non-AI, lossless operation. It does not explicitly state whether the original file is preserved or what the exact return value is, which keeps it from a 5.

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 three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds useful detail about behavior, performance, or output format.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and output well. It could be more complete by stating what the caller should expect as the return value (e.g., a file path or URL) and whether the operation creates a new file or modifies the original.

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 for input_path is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter well. The description does not add meaningful new semantic detail about the parameter itself; it describes the algorithm and output rather than the input path format.

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 image to 1:1 square') and adds precise algorithmic detail: center crop, shorter edge as crop size, and scaling to 1024x1024. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like expand_image_to_square and edit_image.

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 clear context for use: it is a fast, non-AI, lossless cropping operation producing a square image. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous and 'without AI' helps separate it from generation and editing tools.

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