photoshop_crop_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Crop the document' without specifying whether the crop is destructive, whether it applies to a selection, units of the bounds, undo behavior, or confirmation. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap; the agent cannot anticipate side effects.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it lacks detail, which is a trade-off; still, for a simple tool, it is appropriately sized and 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 a simple crop operation with 4 numeric params and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits behavioral details (destructive, undo), coordinate system assumptions, and any note about the optional document_id parameter's effect. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or failure modes without additional context.

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 is 100%, so each parameter has a minimal description (type, name). The description adds no extra meaning about coordinate origin, order, or semantics beyond 'specified bounds'. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not add value over the schema but does not need to.

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') and resource ('the document') with an explicit scope ('to specified bounds'). Among siblings like photoshop_resize_image, which changes overall dimensions, crop is a distinct operation. The verb and resource combination unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose without 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions (e.g., 'use resize instead if you need to scale') or prerequisites (e.g., active document, selection). The agent must infer context from the tool name alone, which is insufficient given the many related operations in the sibling list.

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