gimp_adjust

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly but non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — the operation respects the active selection — but says nothing about what happens when no layer/image is supplied, reversibility, or how the mutation is applied.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then uses a tight one-line-per-operation bullet list. It is long, but the length is earned by 15 distinct operations and their parameter contracts; there is little redundancy, though the mixed bullet/slash formatting is slightly harder to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the operation/parameter mapping is thorough. The main gaps are image_id/layer_id targeting (how the agent points at a non-active layer) and whether omitted params mean defaults, but for a 15-operation adjustment tool it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 21 parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it groups parameters under each operation and supplies units and ranges (hue -180..180, saturation/lightness -100..100, gamma 0.1..10, posterize levels 2..256, temperature K with warm/cool semantics, curves as x1,y1,x2,y2 in 0..1). This is far beyond what the bare schema conveys and compensates almost entirely for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: color adjustments on the current layer, and adds the key scope qualifier 'respetando la selección'. An agent immediately understands this is the color-correction tool, distinct from siblings like gimp_set_colors or gimp_apply_filter, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 operation menu implicitly tells the agent what each call can achieve, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing versus overlapping siblings (gimp_apply_filter, gimp_set_colors). Usage is inferable from the enumerated operations rather than stated.

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