image_crop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not deliver: it never says whether the crop is destructive or reversible, whether it mutates the layer in place, or how the two modes interact (e.g. what happens if aspectRatio and cropX/cropY/cropW/cropH are supplied simultaneously). The mode-precedence ambiguity is a real behavioral risk an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the two modes presented as a clear either/or. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 6-parameter geometry mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical information: precedence between the aspectRatio mode and the four crop-coordinate parameters, whether the operation is destructive, and what the layer state looks like afterward. The one-sentence description is not sufficient for an agent to call this tool confidently.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description only restates the aspect-ratio options already listed as examples in the schema and adds no semantics (e.g. units, whether cropX/Y are absolute or relative to the layer origin).

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 names a specific verb ('Crops') and resource ('an image layer') and enumerates the two operating modes (aspect-ratio presets vs. custom pixel coordinates). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like layer_transform or layer_align, which also manipulate layers, so it stops short of a 5.

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 choose cropping versus layer_transform/layer_align, nor any statement of prerequisites such as the layer needing to be an image layer. Usage is only implied by the verb itself, which is effectively restating the purpose.

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