remove_background

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the operation persists a new stored asset with an alpha channel rather than returning an inline result, plus how to later display it. It does not discuss overwrite behaviour on name collisions despite idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly cryptic — it references a `bg` transform and a bare hex value without naming the tool that applies it — but it earns its place as actionable follow-up guidance.

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 seven fully described parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly covers the essential action and storage side effect. Gaps are minor: it says nothing about source image limitations or what happens when the destination filename already exists.

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 all seven parameters (path, content_base64, folder, folder_id, format, filename, auto_create_folders) are already documented in the schema, including the mutual exclusivity of source options. The description contributes nothing additional about parameters; the colour hex in the example relates to a delivery transform, not an input. 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 ('cuts the subject out of an image') plus the effect ('stores the transparent cutout'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like upload_file, convert_document, or extract_text. It never names an alternative tool directly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 description implies the use case (isolating a subject from an image) and gives a follow-up hint about rendering the cutout over a colour via a `bg` transform, which implicitly points at build_delivery_url. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not name that sibling or any alternative.

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