strip_image_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait that stripping is lossless with no pixel re-encoding. However, it is silent on write semantics: whether outputPath is created or overwritten, what happens if it already exists, whether the operation is reversible, and that C2PA credentials are stripped by default. Those gaps matter for an irreversible mutation.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and the guarantees, with the enumerated metadata list and the no-re-encode assurance doing real work. There is no filler and nothing to trim.

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 five-parameter file-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is removed and how, but omits return/confirmation behavior and destructive-write semantics. Because keepCredentials defaults to false, the fact that Content Credentials are deleted unless opted in is a side effect an agent should be told about here rather than discover from the schema.

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 five parameters are already documented with defaults, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond that baseline. It reinforces the accepted formats for inputPath but adds no meaning about the three keep* flags or their interaction with the stripped segment list.

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 opens with a specific verb (strip) and resource (identifying metadata), then enumerates the exact metadata classes removed (EXIF, GPS, XMP, IPTC, comments, thumbnails, trailers) and the accepted file formats. The stated input formats also separate it cleanly from the sibling inspect_office_document, so an agent can route without reading either schema.

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 usage is implied rather than stated: the tool removes privacy-sensitive metadata, so an agent can infer this is for sanitising images before sharing. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., write permissions or whether outputPath may equal inputPath), and no mention of alternatives or a validation-first path via sniff_file.

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