image_crop

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with creating a new file. The description adds valuable behavioral details: refusal conditions for invalid boxes and output paths, going beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main action, and adds constraints without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 6 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations with hints, the description covers the core operation, example usage, and critical constraints. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but is sufficient for typical use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that x,y,width,height define a 'pixel box from the top-left' and that out_path is for the new file. However, it does not detail each parameter's valid ranges or restrictions, leaving some gaps.

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 clearly states the tool crops a pixel box from an image into a new file, with a concrete example ('isolate one view of a drawing before OCR or a close look'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the operation and result.

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 an example use case (before OCR or close look) and mentions constraints (refuses out-of-bounds box or colliding output path). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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