unset-watermark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation costs 50 quota units and requires confirm: true, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, cost, and confirm requirement. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it would benefit from mentioning side effects or confirmation of successful removal, so it falls short of fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of value by emphasizing that confirm must be true, which reinforces the schema's 'default: false' and 'Must be true to actually remove'. However, it does not add additional meaning to channelId beyond the schema description.

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 'Remove a channel's video watermark' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool set-watermark. It directly states the action and target, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to remove a watermark) and includes important guidance about the confirm parameter needing to be true and the quota cost. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool set-watermark makes the contrast obvious.

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