markly_watermark_logo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the operation (add watermark) and output (download URL with expiry). However, it omits details like potential file size limits, format constraints beyond recommendations, and whether the original image is modified (it is not). Some gaps in transparency remain.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the action and key inputs. It is efficient, though the sentence is slightly run-on. 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the core action and output but lacks mention of customization options (position, opacity, scale) and format recommendations (PNG/WebP for logo). These are in parameter descriptions but not in the main description, leaving the agent somewhat under-informed about available features.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating that image and logo URLs are needed and that a download URL is returned. It does not elaborate on optional parameters like position, opacity, or scale, which are already documented in the schema.

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 ('Add a logo/image watermark to an image'), specifies inputs (image and logo URLs), and mentions the output (download URL with 30 min validity). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like markly_watermark_text and markly_batch_watermark.

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 implies usage for single image logo watermarking but does not explicitly guide when to use alternatives (e.g., text watermarking via markly_watermark_text or batch via markly_batch_watermark). Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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