remove_watermark

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

Given no annotations, the description explains technical details (detecting <v:shape> elements in header XML) and implies the tool modifies the document. Missing explicit mention of irreversibility or impact on other header content, but sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains what watermarks are removed and how. Could add details about all headers being processed, but already stated 'all document headers'.

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?

No parameters exist, but the description adds value by clarifying the type of watermarks removed (VML, DRAFT example) and the detection mechanism, which the empty schema does not convey.

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 specifies the exact action: removing VML watermarks from all document headers, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_text' or 'edit_header_footer' by targeting a specific watermark pattern (v:shape with v:textpath).

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 clearly states the use case (removing watermarks from headers) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the only watermark removal tool.

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