photoshop_set_layer_opacity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the mutation ('set opacity') and the target ('active layer'), but does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., an open document), failure conditions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly concise and easy 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?

For a simple parameter-driven tool with a high-coverage schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any note about the need for an active document or the optional document_id retargeting behavior (which is only in the schema). The active-layer scope is present, but prerequisites and error behavior are absent.

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%, so both parameters (opacity and document_id) are fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('set') and resource ('opacity of the active layer'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like photoshop_set_layer_visibility or photoshop_set_layer_blend_mode. The active-layer scope is explicit, and the name reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts (e.g., adjusting transparency for visual effect) or exclusions (e.g., not for locked layers). An agent is left to infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.

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