photoshop_apply_gradient_map

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states preconditions ('active document') and side effects ('adds a Gradient Map adjustment layer'), plus the return format (JSON with ok, summary, details). This discloses the non-destructive mutation and output structure, which is sufficient for an adjustment-layer tool.

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 well-organized: a main purpose sentence, user intent phrases, return format, preconditions, and side effects. Every line adds value and is front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant or filler text.

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 simple adjustment-layer tool, the description covers preconditions, side effects, and return structure. It does not mention whether the adjustment applies to the whole image or a selected layer, but since it creates a new adjustment layer, the behavior is standard. With no output schema, the explicit return format is helpful. Slightly more detail on the effect scope would push it to 5.

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% – both 'reverse' and 'document_id' are documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (it only mentions 'reverse' in the return details). Since the schema already explains the parameters, a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Gradient Map adjustment layer' with a clear purpose 'for duotone/B&W tonal remapping.' It also specifies the default gradient (black→white). This clearly distinguishes it from other adjustment tools like curves or photo filter.

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 'Users often say: duotone look, gradient map B&W, remap tones' provides clear contextual signals for when an agent should select this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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