remove_watermark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals meaningful traits: works locally, requires no login, uses LaMa inpainting, automatically locates watermarks, and allows manual masks for difficult cases. This goes beyond a simple 'removes watermarks' statement.

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?

A single, compact sentence packs in the core purpose, technical method, access mode, and the auto-detection versus manual mask distinction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description plus schema cover the function, the behavior, and the output path default. It could be richer with explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or input format constraints, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents all 3 parameters with 100% coverage, including the fact that mask skips auto-detection. The description's mention of auto-locating and mask use for complex scenes slightly reinforces parameter behavior but adds minimal new semantic value 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 identifies the action (remove watermark), the method (LaMa inpainting), and key attributes (local processing, no login). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_bg (background removal) and upscale_image by targeting watermarks specifically.

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?

Usage is implied: use when an image has a watermark, and use a mask for complex scenes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like remove_bg for image cleanup tasks.

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