adjust_hue_saturation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose whether the adjustment is applied destructively in place, whether it is affected by the current selection, or what happens when the named layer or image index is invalid. Only 'Returns status dict' hints at output, and the default-to-active-layer behavior is the one genuinely useful behavioral detail.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence and then uses a compact parameter list that is justified by the 0% schema coverage. No filler, though the trailing 'Returns status dict' is thin enough to be almost noise.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers parameter meaning well but omits error behavior, selection interaction, and any indication of whether edits are undoable. It is adequate to invoke the tool but not to predict its effects.

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%, so the description must compensate, which it largely does: it lists numeric ranges (-180 to +180 for hue, -100 to +100 for saturation and lightness), defaults for all six parameters, and the full enum of color_range values that the schema leaves as a bare string. Units and interaction between hue/saturation/lightness are still unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: adjusting hue, saturation, and lightness of a layer. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like adjust_brightness_contrast, adjust_color_balance, and desaturate, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as desaturate or adjust_color_balance for overlapping color work. It also omits prerequisites (an open image, an existing target layer), leaving the agent to infer context.

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