erase_text

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

The description reveals important behavioral details: failures (including HTTP 402/504) are not charged, the mask's white areas indicate erase regions, and the paste_back flag controls pixel retention outside the erased area. This goes beyond a simple action statement and sets clear expectations for the tool's runtime behavior.

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 efficient and information-dense. Every sentence provides value—purpose, mask semantics, billing, and input modes—without redundancy or unnecessary filler, making it appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple options, and billing nuances), the description covers all necessary aspects: how masking works, input formats, resolution, output options, and cost implications. No external documentation is needed for a basic understanding, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear parameter explanations.

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?

All 8 parameters have meaningful descriptions in both the schema and the tool description. The description adds contextual guidance (e.g., 'Use when you have bytes, not a URL' for image_file_b64, and 'Ignore if a mask is sent' for return_boxes), which enhances understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Erase lettering from a photo or graphic and rebuild the background.' It also explains the optional mask behavior and how to use base64 versus URL inputs, making it distinct from the sibling account 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?

The description explicitly explains when to use each input mode (URL vs. base64), how the mask works, the effect of paste_back, and the return_boxes option. It also covers billing behavior (only charged on success) and provides links for key creation and credit purchase, leaving no ambiguity about usage.

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