raster_crop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of explaining behavior. It adds a useful detail about inclusive pixel coordinates, which is a behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose what happens to the original image, what the output parameter does, or any side effects.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and object. It contains no fluff or repeated information, making it highly readable and efficient.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide more context. It covers the core operation but leaves the optional 'output' parameter unexplained, and it does not clarify the return value or file handling. This makes it incomplete for a tool with six parameters and no supportive annotations.

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 description adds meaning by specifying that the coordinates define an inclusive rectangle, which clarifies the relationship between left, top, right, and bottom. However, it does not explain the 'path' or 'output' parameters, leaving some parameters underspecified given the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 operation: 'Crop image to the specified rectangle (inclusive pixel coordinates).' It names a specific verb ('crop') and resource ('image'), and the coordinate specification distinguishes it from sibling operations like resize or rotate.

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 verb 'crop' clearly implies the use case, and the mention of a rectangle with inclusive coordinates provides context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough to guide selection among similar raster tools.

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