Watermark Removal

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that results are written to disk and paths returned, and flags the rights-to-modify constraint, but does not expand on credit consumption or the point at which the model must be specified by the user.

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 purpose and target artifacts are front-loaded, and the text is compact with no filler. The "Best for" list is slightly dense but every clause carries usable scoping information.

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 nine-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context (files saved to disk, paths returned) and the rights caveat. It is adequate and largely complete; only the omission of credit/processing implications keeps it from the top.

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% and all nine parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, including the model-selection rule and output_dir behavior. The description only echoes the "Standard or AI Pro model" distinction and adds no format, default, or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("remove watermarks from a design") and scopes the target artifacts precisely (watermarks, logos, stamped branding, overlaid text). It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as td_background_removal or td_fabric_texture_removal, leaving that separation to inference.

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?

"Best for: cleaning watermarks... e.g. a residual mark on a licensed stock file or old branding on archive designs" gives clear, concrete usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative tool, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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