strip_photo_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state what metadata categories are removed and frames the operation as safe, but it does not clarify whether the original file is modified in place or a new file is produced; only the schema's output_path description implies a copy.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the key behaviors without filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

The schema covers all parameters, including the default output naming behavior, and the description supplies enough context for a straightforward sanitization tool. Minor gaps remain around file overwrite behavior and return values, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score.

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 names a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('EXIF camera info, GPS geolocation, IPTC, and sensitive tracking tags') with a clear privacy goal. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like resize_for_platform and apply_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?

The phrase 'before publishing or sharing' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it over the siblings.

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