Remove Watermark

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: the quota cost of 51 units and confirmation of idempotent behavior ('succeeds when there is none'), which an agent needs for cost-aware planning.

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 short sentences plus a quota line, with the action front-loaded and no filler. The 'Succeeds when there is none' fragment is slightly terse but earns its place by signaling idempotency.

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 mutation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, idempotency, and quota cost. Return-value details are correctly delegated to the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (my_channel) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the channel selector, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove the watermark from your videos'), and is unambiguously distinct from the sibling set_watermark. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the note that it succeeds when no watermark exists, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or routing to set_watermark as the inverse operation. The cue about succeeding when none exists is helpful context but not full when-to-use guidance.

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