tool_poster_ratio_editor

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 reveals the multi-step process, including reliance on db/projects.json, the prompt submission, URL capture, and image download. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the DB) or any environmental requirements, leaving minor gaps.

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, dense sentence that efficiently captures the entire process. The 'Boss Function 4:' prefix is unnecessary noise, but the rest of the sentence is information-dense without redundancy. It is reasonably concise and well-structured.

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 100% schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and a thorough step-by-step description, the tool is well-contextualized. The only missing element is explicit when-to-use guidance, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operation and invoke it 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description references the ratio and prompt in the workflow, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. No compensation needed.

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 states the specific workflow: opening the latest edit page from DB, selecting the target aspect ratio, submitting the prompt, capturing the updated URL, and downloading the image. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_edit_poster, which likely handle general edits, by focusing solely on ratio editing.

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 implies the tool is used for changing image aspect ratio and downloading the result, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions. It lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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