fs_image_crop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects such as overwriting dest_path, coordinate system origin, required permissions, or behavior on missing files. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with six required parameters. While it is concise, it lacks structure and does not earn its place by providing additional helpful context beyond the name.

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 the tool's complexity (six required parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not cover key behavioral aspects like coordinate handling, overwrite rules, or file format support. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters, leaving x, y, width, height, source_path, and dest_path without meaning. The description 'rectangular region' only weakly implies coordinates but provides no units, origin, or relationship to the 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 'Crop rectangular region from image' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Crop') and a specific resource ('image'), and it differentiates from siblings like fs_image_resize and fs_image_rotate by specifying the crop operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or alternative tool references. It omits any context about prerequisites or suitability, offering no usage guidance beyond the basic action.

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