Moderate Content

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

The description discloses async behavior, the nature of the result (flagged verdict, overall score, processed copy with masked unsafe regions), and the requirement to poll with the returned request_id. These go beyond the annotations and give a clear picture of the tool's behavior without contradiction.

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 tightly written, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence provides essential information (purpose, output, async note, args). No wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, async behavior, expected output, and polling mechanism. With no output schema, it adequately explains return values, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively.

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?

Even though the input schema is empty, the description fully documents the two parameters (image_url, video_url) with types and the requirement to provide exactly one. This adds crucial meaning where the schema is silent, earning full credit.

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 'Run NSFW moderation on an image or video' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by being the only moderation tool. It also explicitly describes the output, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: it notes the asynchronous submission and instructs to poll with `xbrush_get_request`. It also includes the constraint to provide exactly one of image_url or video_url, which is clear guidance on how to invoke the tool.

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