adjust_curves

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It discloses defaults and "Returns status dict." but says nothing about undoability, what happens if layer_name does not exist, whether the adjustment is destructive, or how errors surface.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the parameters are a tight, scannable bullet list with no filler. The only waste is restating schema defaults (default 0, default s_curve), which the schema already carries.

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 five-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the parameter coverage is genuinely good and the return is at least named. Missing are the behavioral facts an agent needs to call it safely: failure modes for a bad layer_name or image_index, and whether the operation is undoable.

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 0% and the schema declares no enums, yet the description supplies the effective enum values for preset (s_curve/lighten/darken/contrast) and channel (value/red/green/blue/alpha) plus the [[input, output], ...] shape and preset-override relationship for points. It stops short of documenting value ranges or whether the preset list is exhaustive.

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?

"Adjust tonal curves for a layer" states a specific verb and resource, and the mention of curves distinguishes it from sibling tonal tools like adjust_brightness_contrast and auto_levels. It does not name or exclude any sibling explicitly, 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?

The description never says when to reach for curves instead of auto_levels, adjust_brightness_contrast, adjust_color_balance, or levels-style siblings. There are no prerequisites or exclusions, only a bare statement of what it does, leaving tool selection to inference.

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