adjust_hsl_native

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: parameter ranges (hue -180..180, etc.), that layer_name defaults to active layer, frame_index is 1-based, and region parameters only apply when width>0 and height>0. It does not explicitly state whether the modification is in-place or if a new layer is created.

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 concise, with a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The format is easy to parse.

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?

Given the 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameter details, and sibling distinction. It lacks explicit mention of return value or side effects (e.g., whether the file is saved), but is largely sufficient for a filter tool.

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, the description provides detailed semantics for all 10 parameters: ranges, defaults, and conditions (e.g., region scoping). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 clearly states it is a 'Native Hue/Saturation/Lightness filter' and distinguishes from the sibling 'adjust_hsl' by noting 'engine-quality'. The verb 'filter' and the resource 'HSL' are specific.

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 description mentions 'engine-quality vs adjust_hsl', hinting at a qualitative difference, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or specific usage contexts are given.

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