clip_raster

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions reading input and writing output inside PathGuard roots, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting, permissions needed, or how existing data is handled. The overwrite parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Efficiently covers primary use and constraints. Could be slightly more structured but is concise and informative.

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?

Covers main functionality, inputs, output constraints, and use cases. Does not detail error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool correctly.

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 already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about the three clipping methods (rectangle, extent, polygon) which relate to parameters, but does not explain each parameter individually. PathGuard constraint is mentioned, which adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states action 'Clip', resource 'raster', and specifies three methods: rectangle, template extent, polygon. It differentiates from siblings like extract_by_mask by mentioning it uses ArcPy management Clip and does not require Spatial Analyst.

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?

Provides explicit context for use: 'crop imagery, DEMs, or classified rasters to a study area without requiring Spatial Analyst.' Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but gives clear guidance.

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