add_text_watermark

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

The description mentions it returns the processed image path but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the original image is modified, required image formats, or side effects. No annotations are provided to compensate, so the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 concise with a clear structure (Args, Returns). It uses no unnecessary words and fits the tool's simplicity. However, it could be more structured for multilingual clarity.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and basic parameters. The return value is mentioned. Without the output schema, the description is adequate but does not elaborate on possible errors, output format, or other complexities. It meets the minimum viable standard.

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%, but the description provides explanations for all three parameters: image_path (local file path), watermark_text (text content), and angle (tilt angle, default 30). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default definitions, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 '为图片添加文字水印' (add text watermark to image), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_image_watermark' by specifying 'text watermark' versus an image watermark.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_image_watermark) or any exclusions. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but the agent receives no context about preferences or constraints.

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