photoshop_auto_levels

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral implications, but it only restates the operation and target layer. It does not say that pixels are modified, that the adjustment may be destructive without undo, or how it differs from auto contrast, which is important safety information for an image-edit 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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action, then add practical user-phrase triggers. No wasted words, and the quoted phrases earn their place by aiding tool selection.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the target (active layer), the operation, and common user phrasings. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying side effects or when to prefer auto contrast.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional document_id parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, matching the baseline for a fully covered 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 states a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('auto levels adjustment') and targets the active layer. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like photoshop_auto_contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It provides natural-language triggers ('fix flat image, auto tone, make it pop (mild)') that help an agent recognize when a user wants this tool. However, it gives no exclusions or explicit comparison to alternatives such as auto contrast or brightness/contrast, leaving selection partly to inference.

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