Crop an image to a bounded rectangle in canvas pixels by setting x, y, width, and height. Use it to trim canvas areas precisely within a GIMP session.
Crop the image to a bounded rectangle in canvas pixels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the coordinate space ('canvas pixels'), which is useful, but says nothing about whether cropping is destructive to the document or layers, undo behavior, or how it interacts with the session.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere rather than being tight but complete.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, this is under-specified. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the missing coordinate and side-effect semantics leave real gaps.
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% across 5 parameters, and the description only partially compensates by establishing that dimensions are in canvas pixels. It never clarifies that x/y is the top-left corner of the rectangle, nor what session_id identifies.
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?
States a specific verb (crop) and resource (the image) plus the scope (bounded rectangle in canvas pixels). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling document_autocrop, which is the most likely confusion point for an agent.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative document_autocrop for automatic cropping. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.