interactive_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the interactive workflow (opens browser tool, awaits user input, crops, repairs, composites), but lacks details on blocking behavior, timeout, or what happens if no selection is made. The core behavior is described, but some edge cases are missing.

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?

Three sentences: first states the primary action, second explains the process, third provides usage guidance. No redundant information. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the interactive process and the compositing outcome. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the final image path or object). Given the complexity and absence of output schema, a brief mention of return value would improve completeness.

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 the description does not need to add much. It does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The model parameter has extensive enum descriptions in the schema itself. Description adds little new meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action: opens a browser-based crop tool, waits for user to draw a rectangle, then repairs and composites. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'fix_image' by emphasizing interactive, user-guided precision.

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 states 'Best for precise, user-guided fixes' which implies when to use, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'fix_region' or 'fix_image'. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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