Rewrite text to remove the Claude watermark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals important behavioral traits: rewriting happens at sentence and clause level, meaning/facts/numbers/names/code are preserved, and the goal is to evade Claude content detection. This goes beyond a generic 'rewrite' and gives the agent a realistic picture of the transformation, though it stops short of describing output format or failure modes.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool does and what it preserves, while the second sentence gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter text transformation tool, the description covers the purpose, the transformation behavior, and the intended use case. It does not explicitly state that the output is the rewritten text, but this is implied by 'rewrites a passage' and the use-case sentence. Minor gap, but overall sufficient for correct 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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter, text, including the upper bound of ~30,000 characters and the suggestion to split longer documents. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('rewrites'), a precise resource ('a passage of text'), and the level of operation ('sentence and clause level'), plus the intended effect: removing the statistical pattern that Claude content detectors flag. This is clearly distinguished from the sibling tool strip_image_metadata, which operates on images rather than text.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to clean text copied from Claude, Claude Code, or the Claude API before publishing.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool is obviously about image metadata, so the usage boundary is clear enough without an explicit exclusion.

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