image_remove_bg_magic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the algorithmic approach (sampling at click coords with tolerance/feather), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, what happens to the removed pixels, or which layer types are eligible.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and then the mechanism. Every clause (sampling, tolerance, feather) 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 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism but omits prerequisites (layer must be an image layer, required layerId), result behavior, and how it differs operationally from the auto variant. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter (x, y, feather, layerId, tolerance) is already documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description only restates tolerance and feather conceptually, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Performs Magic Wand background removal on an image layer') and names the mechanism (color sampling at click coordinates), which implicitly separates it from the sibling image_remove_bg_auto. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 when this is appropriate (a Magic-Wand-style, point-sampled removal) but never states when to prefer it over image_remove_bg_auto or what preconditions exist. Usage is inferable from the mechanism, not explicit.

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