arvan_vod_create_watermark

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

Annotations indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond annotations, such as what the response contains, side effects, or required permissions. With no output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 a single sentence with an inline example, no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. Could be slightly improved by separating the example for clarity, but overall efficient.

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 of a creation tool with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a watermark is, constraints on fields, or post-creation steps. The sibling tools list is extensive but the description does not leverage context signals to provide a complete picture.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It provides an example for the 'fields' parameter (suggesting keys like 'title' and 'file_id'), which is helpful. However, 'channel_id' is left without any description or example, leaving a gap.

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 clearly states the action 'Create a watermark' and the resource 'in a channel'. It also provides an example of the expected fields parameter format. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'arvan_vod_update_watermark' or 'arvan_vod_delete_watermark', which would help an agent choose the correct tool.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., channel must exist) or context for when creation is appropriate.

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