clean_product_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation preserves original background/lighting and product features, produces a high-res WebP, and includes an AI review step. It could add more about output delivery or how AI review can affect the result, but the coverage is solid for a transformation tool.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: core cleanup behavior, preservation/style guarantees, and output/aspect-ratio details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior, preservation guarantees, output format, and a key parameter. The main gaps are the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and no detail about how the result is returned, but the description is still sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and call it correctly.

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 the input schema already documents input_path, aspect_ratio, and additional_instructions. The description adds the default aspect ratio (1:1) and output format, but does not add meaningfully to what the schema already provides for the other parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') with clear targets ('watermarks, logos, and overlays') and explicitly says what is preserved ('original background and lighting'). It also differentiates from the sibling clean_product_image_white_bg by emphasizing that the original background is retained.

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?

Usage context is implied through the description of what the tool does and preserves, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clean_product_image_white_bg or crop_image_to_square. The preservation clause hints at the distinction from the white-background sibling, but does not name it or give exclusion criteria.

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