add_watermark_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Add a text watermark' and omits critical details such as whether existing watermarks are replaced, whether the action is reversible, permission requirements, effects on document layout, or return values. The agent has no insight into side effects or constraints.

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 extremely short (three words), which could be seen as concise, but it comes at the cost of essential information. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness. The description lacks structure and does not efficiently convey necessary details; every sentence should earn its place, but here there is only one trivial sentence.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide any context about how parameters interact, default behaviors, or return values. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the six parameters (doc_id, text, font_name, size, color, diagonal). The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation, especially for optional styling 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 'Add a text watermark', which clearly indicates the tool adds a watermark composed of text. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_watermark_image_base64', which adds an image watermark. The verb 'Add' and resource 'text watermark' are specific enough to imply the purpose, but a brief mention of when to use this over the image variant would improve clarity.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_watermark_image_base64. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which the tool is appropriate. This leaves the agent without guidance for correct selection.

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