set_watermark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'sets' a watermark; it does not explain whether an existing watermark is replaced, how the watermark affects printing, whether both text and image modes can be set simultaneously, or what side effects occur.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the action. It is concise, though somewhat sparse given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, but the agent still lacks enough information to correctly construct calls involving the many optional watermark formatting parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Text or image type' hints at the role of watermark_type, but it does not explain how text, image_path, angle, color, font_name, and font_size relate to each other or which combinations are valid. An agent cannot tell whether image_path is required for image watermarks or whether text is required for text watermarks.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and a specific resource ('print watermark'), and it names the two variants ('text or image type'). Among a large sibling list with no other watermark tool, this clearly distinguishes the tool's 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'print watermark' implies a print-related use case, but the description does not state when to choose this over other document-modification tools such as insert_picture or set_page_style.

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