crop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the coordinate system (origin at top-left) but does not mention whether the operation modifies the clip in place or creates a new one, nor any side effects, bounds constraints, or return behavior.

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, front-loading the action and coordinates without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 straightforward geometric operation, the description covers the essential geometry but omits operational context such as whether a new clip is returned or the original is modified. The output schema exists but does not cover this behavior, so the description is adequate yet has clear gaps.

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 to the coordinate parameters by explaining they define a rectangle and that the origin is top-left. However, it does not clarify whether coordinates are inclusive/exclusive or what units are used, and clip_id is left to schema inference. Partial compensation for the 0% schema 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 tool's function: cropping a clip to a rectangle defined by (x1, y1)-(x2, y2). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use crop versus alternatives such as resize or rotate. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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