crop_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the crop is destructive (does it modify the original image or create a new one?), whether coordinates are relative to a loaded image or file path, or how out-of-bounds coordinates are handled. These are critical behavioral details missing.

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 very concise: a single sentence that clearly states the action. It is front-loaded and to the point. The only minor issue is that it lacks any additional context, but for simplicity it is well structured.

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?

Given there is an output schema (though not provided here), the need for describing return values is reduced. However, the tool is one of many image manipulation tools, and the description doesn't clarify how it integrates with the workflow (e.g., whether it operates on an image already loaded, or if the image_id refers to a file path or in-memory object). It lacks critical operational context for an agent to use it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also doesn't need to since each parameter is described in the schema. However, it doesn't provide any relationships or constraints (e.g., width/height must be positive, coordinates must be within bounds) that would be valuable.

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 clear verb ('Crop'), resource ('the image'), and specific action ('to a specific region'). It is specific enough to distinguish it from other image manipulation tools like resize_image, rotate_image, and flip_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say anything about prerequisites (e.g., image must be loaded), coordinate system assumptions, or when another tool might be more appropriate (e.g., resize for scaling vs crop for trimming).

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