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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing what each mode actually removes (AI/C2PA markers vs EXIF/GPS/XMP/IPTC), that PDF/Word property handling is mode-independent, and that the response contains both the cleaned file and the removed fields. It does not discuss size limits, auth, or whether the original is untouched, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload ('Return a cleaned JPEG ... as base64, plus the fields that were removed'), followed by mode behavior. Efficient overall, though the mode detail duplicates the schema wording rather than adding new information.

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 output schema, the description correctly explains the return shape (base64 cleaned file plus removed fields), which is the key gap it needed to fill. Input-source exclusivity (file_url vs file_base64) is left entirely to the schema, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description's mode sentences largely restate the enum documentation already present in the schema (including the 'Default: all' and PDF/Word behavior), adding little new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a cleaned ... plus the fields that were removed') and enumerates supported formats (JPEG, PNG, WebP, PDF, DOCX). An agent immediately knows this transforms a file and reports removals. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling inspect_metadata, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Mode semantics ('ai_only keeps camera EXIF and GPS', 'all removes them too') give real usage context, but there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over inspect_metadata, nor any note that exactly one of file_url/file_base64 should be supplied. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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