strip_metadata_only

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose what is stripped and that pixels are not modified, which is useful. However, it does not clarify the re-encoding implications of the 'quality' parameter, the effect of omitting output_path, or the irreversibility of metadata removal, and 'without modifying pixels' vs. 'compression quality' creates a mild ambiguity.

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 with the core behavior, and the Args/Returns structure makes it easy to scan. It contains no filler, and the parameter explanations are appropriately sized. It mildly repeats schema field names, but not in a wasteful way.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: input path, optional output path, and quality semantics. The main gaps are behavioral edge cases—what happens when output_path is omitted, and whether the tool supports formats other than JPEG/WebP—but the core calling context is sufficiently complete.

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, and it largely does. It explains image_path as the input file, output_path as the optional cleaned-output location, and quality as JPEG/WebP compression quality with a range and default. It adds usable meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could go slightly deeper on what happens when output_path is null.

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 ('strips') and names the resource clearly: all metadata, C2PA manifests, and EXIF tags. It also adds a crucial scoping guarantee—'without modifying pixels'—which distinguishes it from pixel-altering sanitization tools and inspection tools. An agent can tell what this tool does without needing to open the schema.

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 single-image metadata-only stripping through 'image_path' and 'output_path', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like batch_sanitize_directory or anti_ai_sanitize. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so the usage context is only implied.

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