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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a critical non-obvious behavioral trait, the 5-credit cost, and the sequencing dependency on face_swap. It doesn't state whether the operation is destructive to the original image or how long processing takes, but the cost and dependency disclosures are meaningful beyond what any structured field offers.

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 purpose, followed by the conditional usage rule and cost. Every clause earns its place with no 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, sequencing, and cost. It could mention whether the source image is preserved or what happens to the credits on failure, but the essential calling information is present.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('URL of the image to clean'). The description adds no parameter detail but none is needed; a single fully-documented parameter gives a baseline of 4.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Remove text overlays and watermarks from an image.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling face_swap by noting the ordering relationship, so an agent can tell when this tool is the right one.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Only use AFTER face_swap if the result still has visible text.' It also names the alternative and explains that face_swap already attempts text removal by default, which prevents redundant calls. This is the rare case of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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