crop_canvas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the coordinate unit (document px) and that layers are kept whole / the operation is undoable without loss. However, it omits what happens to layer content that extends beyond the crop box, whether the crop is destructive outside undo history, and whether any project context is required.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action and its scope are front-loaded before the layer/undo reassurance, which is exactly where an agent needs it.

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 no output schema, the description covers units and layer preservation but leaves the geometry semantics and the project parameter undocumented. Adequate as a minimum, but not complete enough to call the tool confidently from the description 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 coverage is 0% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies the unit ('document px') for the box. It says nothing about the meaning of width/height (e.g. positive-only), the origin convention, or the optional 'project' parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Crop the canvas') with a qualifying detail ('to a box (document px)'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name the nearby siblings resize_canvas/expand_canvas, but the distinction between cropping, resizing, and expanding is implicit in the wording.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as resize_canvas or expand_canvas, even though these three siblings all change canvas dimensions. The agent must infer the crop-vs-resize distinction on its own.

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