image_ai_label

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core actions (stamp label, write EXIF), but does not clarify whether the original file is modified in place or if output_path is required for a new file. It also omits details about reversibility, side effects on existing metadata, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool without annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence and relatively concise, but includes non-essential information like the price '$0.01' and the marketing phrase 'fast bulk option'. These do not directly aid tool selection or invocation, so the sentence does not fully earn its place. It is front-loaded with the action, but has some fluff.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error handling, supported file formats (beyond schema enums), or how output_path and idempotency_key function. An agent would lack sufficient information to use the tool correctly without opening the schema and inferring behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (file, text, format, position, output_path, idempotency_key) beyond implicitly referencing 'local path' for file. The description adds no meaning to the schema, failing to clarify enums, defaults, or the purpose of idempotency_key.

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 action: stamp a visible 'AI-generated' label and write it into EXIF metadata, specifying the resource (image) and context (EU AI Act labelling). It distinguishes from siblings like image_c2pa_sign by mentioning visible label and EXIF, and from image_process by focusing on labelling. The verb 'stamp' is specific and the scope is precise.

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?

It mentions 'the fast bulk option for EU AI Act labelling', which gives clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with sibling tools like image_c2pa_sign or image_c2pa_verify, so there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance. It provides context but no exclusions, matching the rubric's 4-level.

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