plan_responsive_crop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that output is a set of numeric crop values rather than a mutated asset, but it says nothing about coordinate conventions, clamping behavior, or what happens when the focus point falls outside the cropped region.

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, and the output artifacts are named before the qualifier. It is appropriately terse, though for an 8-parameter tool the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

Eight parameters with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects means the description should explain the focus-vs-target coordinate model and the return shape; it does neither. An agent could not confidently map its inputs to the two coordinate systems from this text alone.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: focusX/focusY (source subject point) versus targetX/targetY (desired output position) are never distinguished, and the defaults 0.7/0.5/0.65/0.5 are unexplained. width/height versus assetWidth/assetHeight semantics are also absent. Only 'desired subject position' loosely gestures at the target parameters.

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 specific verb ('Compute') and enumerates the concrete outputs (object-fit cover scale, crop offsets, object-position) plus the input intent (desired subject position). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never contrasts itself with any sibling; with no near-neighbor in the sibling list, differentiation is not a real risk.

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 reach for this tool versus alternatives such as generate_responsive_layout or plan_visual_qa, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that you need asset dimensions and target container size). Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose.

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