Blur objects

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

The description states the tool returns a URL of the blurred image, which implies the original is preserved. Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and open world. The description adds return format context but does not reveal potential side effects or limitations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, examples, and return. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, examples, and what is returned. It lacks error handling or performance notes but is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 100%, and the schema provides detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds example values ('faces', 'license plates') but does not significantly extend meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'blur', the resource 'objects in an image', and the purpose 'for privacy'. Examples like 'faces, license plates' provide concrete context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pedra_remove_object.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pedra_remove_object for complete removal). The description lacks any usage context or prerequisites.

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