insert_watermark

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It mentions inserting into the default header and the session isolation handle, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing watermarks or other side effects. Additional context about the operation's safety would improve transparency.

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 two sentences for the main operation and bullet-style parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no unnecessary words.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, technical implementation, and parameters. Given an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It lacks mention of prerequisites like document open state, but the context of the server likely implies that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a specialized tool.

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?

The description adds meaning to all three parameters: text (watermark content with examples), diagonal (orientation with default), and document_handle (session isolation). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role and behavior.

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 the tool inserts a VML watermark into the default header, specifying the exact technical approach (v:shape with v:textpath). It distinguishes from siblings like remove_watermark and other insert tools by being specific to watermarks.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when a different watermark style is needed). Usage is implied by the tool name and standard Word pattern, but no exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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