blur_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says the tool blurs or pixelates a region, but does not mention whether the original image is modified in place, whether the operation is reversible, or what the output/return behavior is. For a mutating image tool, this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The action and purpose are front-loaded, and the example use case is useful without being verbose.

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 tool has a complete input schema with parameter descriptions and an output schema, so the description does not need to repeat return-value details. The main missing context is behavioral (in-place mutation, reversibility/undo), but given the schema richness, the description is close enough for basic selection and invocation.

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% and the params already explain x, y, width, height, image_id, pixelate, and blur_strength. The description adds the intent (hiding sensitive info) and mentions blur/pixelate, but does not add new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Blur or pixelate'), names the resource ('a region of the image'), and states a clear purpose ('hide sensitive information'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crop_image, resize_image, and annotate, which serve different purposes.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for hiding passwords, email addresses, personal info, etc.' It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it over other image-editing siblings.

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