remove_watermark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses the auto-backup mechanism, the effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. This goes well beyond a bare mutation warning, though it could also clarify reversibility or failure behavior more.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is first, followed by essential behavioral details and a key constraint. Every clause adds information without padding.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, scope, backup behavior, save semantics, and a critical operational constraint. No essential calling information appears to be missing.

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. It does clarify the backup parameter's behavior ('backup=False skips rotation only'), but file_path semantics are left entirely to the parameter name. The open-in-Word refusal indirectly informs file_path usage, but the description still does not fully cover all parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove watermark shapes from every header.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_watermark or get_headers_footers by stating both the action and the scope.

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'remove,' but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, such as add_watermark or manage_backups. The 'Refuses documents open in Word' line provides a condition, but not a fuller when-to-use or when-not-to-use explanation.

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