plan_enhancementSelects a cautious first enhancement model based on blur type, severity, and whether text or faces are present, without inspecting or modifying the image.
Choose a cautious first model from blur symptoms. It does not inspect or modify an image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blurType | Yes | ||
| severity | Yes | ||
| containsTextOrFaces | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important behavioral fact that the tool does not inspect or modify the image, which is meaningful for a blur-related tool. However, it says nothing about whether the output is a recommendation, a plan object, or guidance text, nor about side effects or determinism.
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?
Two tight sentences with the capability statement first and the scope-limiting disclaimer second; no filler. Brevity is not the problem here—under-specification is.
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 tool with 0% parameter documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what a 'plan' looks like and how the inputs shape it. It omits both, so an agent cannot predict the response or confidently map inputs to outcomes.
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% and all three parameters are required, yet the description only alludes to 'blur symptoms' generically. It does not explain how severity or containsTextOrFaces influence the chosen model, leaving the agent to guess at the mapping from enumerated inputs to output.
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 verb phrase 'Choose a cautious first model from blur symptoms' gestures at planning a remediation approach from the blur parameters, and the negative clause clarifies it does not touch pixels. But 'model' is ambiguous (processing model? pipeline?) and the tool name/title 'plan_enhancement' is never reconciled with what is actually produced, so the agent must infer that this is a planning/recommendation step.
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?
'Cautious first model' weakly implies this is a preliminary step before actual enhancement, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and neither sibling (get_official_links, check_image_metadata) is referenced to clarify ordering or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.