Remove object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the tool removes an object and returns a URL, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, any permissions needed, or implications for the source image. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence followed by a return statement. It is front-loaded with the core action and extremely concise with no waste. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys purpose and return. However, it could be improved by specifying the expected mask format (e.g., binary) or noting if the original image is modified. Minor gap, but overall complete for basic use.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains them. The tool description adds no additional meaning besides mentioning 'using a mask', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove an object from an image'), the method ('using a mask'), and the return ('cleaned image URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pedra_blur and pedra_edit_via_prompt by specifying mask-based removal.

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 description implies usage (when you have a mask), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pedra_edit_via_prompt. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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