add_text_watermark_to_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists parameters and the API endpoint, but does not explain output behavior, file handling, permissions, or side effects. The operation is implied but not detailed.

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 dense sentence that mixes API endpoint with a parameter list. It is not well-structured and reads as a run-on, but it is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main 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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks usage context, expected output, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. It covers purpose and some parameter info but is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the key parameter names and groups required vs optional (e.g., 'optional font size, colour, bold, opacity, rotation, position_x/y'). This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but it largely repeats parameter names without explaining formats, constraints, or default behaviors.

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 the action: 'Add a text watermark to an image', with a specific verb and resource. It also names the API endpoint and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_image_watermark_to_image' (text vs image watermark).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'add_image_watermark_to_image' or 'add_text_stamp_to_pdf'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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