remove_watermark

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the action but does not mention destructiveness (removing is destructive), required permissions, error conditions, or whether it affects all header types. Minimal transparency beyond the core action.

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 very short (one sentence, 10 words), which is concise but at the cost of missing parameter details and broader context. It is front-loaded with the action, but incomplete for practical use.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output or the parameter, leaving the agent without information to correctly invoke the tool. For a simple tool, more detail is expected.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'document_handle'. No help is provided for the agent to understand what this parameter represents or how to use it.

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 action (remove), the target (VML watermarks), and the scope (all document headers), with an example ('DRAFT'). It distinguishes from the sibling insert_watermark. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes a VML watermark and that it only applies to headers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if watermarks are not VML, or if only certain headers should be targeted). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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