replace_background

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions matting backends (MediaPipe/SAM) but does not disclose whether operation is destructive, performance implications, or effect on original background. Inadequate for safe invocation.

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?

Single sentence packs key information with minimal verbosity. However, the compressed notation ('space|blur|solid|image') may be ambiguous for some agents.

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?

With 4 parameters (1 required) and no annotations, description insufficient for reliable invocation. Output schema exists but description doesn't hint at return structure. Needs explanation of plate options and backend behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, yet description only clarifies 'plate' options (space|blur|solid|image). Does not explain 'plate_image' (required when plate='image'), 'matte_backend' (auto vs specific), or 'project_id'. Leaves agent guessing.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'cut out' and 'composite over plate' with enumerated options (space|blur|solid|image). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_graphics' or 'apply_recipe', which perform different operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must contain a subject) or specify which plate option should be used in which scenario.

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