Remove Background

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

The description discloses the async behavior and the need to poll with xbrush_get_request, adding context beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive characteristics.

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 remarkably concise, with three short sentences covering purpose, async behavior, and parameter. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool with no output schema, the description effectively communicates how to invoke it and what to do with the result (poll with request_id). It could be more complete with an example or edge-case note, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (image_url) with a URI format and clear description. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Remove the background from an image' with a specific verb and resource, distinctly separating it from siblings like xbrush_image_upscale or xbrush_image_edit.

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?

It provides clear context by noting the async submission and polling requirement, which is essential for correct usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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