apply_emboss

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the mutation target (a layer) and the return shape ('Returns status dict'), plus the default-to-active-layer behavior. It does not say whether the effect is destructive or undoable, what happens if layer_name is not found, or whether an image must be open first.

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-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact bullet list of parameters and a one-line return note; nothing is padded. The bullets are slightly redundant with schema titles but earn their place by adding ranges and defaults.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers parameters and return type adequately. It is missing safety and state context an agent would want: destructiveness/undo, required active image, and failure behavior for an unknown layer name.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it gives valid ranges for azimuth (0-360 degrees, default 315 = top-left) and elevation (0-90, default 45), explains depth as intensity, and clarifies that layer_name defaults to the active layer. Only depth units and image_index semantics remain thin.

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 ('Apply an emboss (bas-relief) effect to a layer') and disambiguates the effect type from the many sibling filters such as apply_noise, apply_drop_shadow, and apply_gaussian_blur. An agent can tell exactly which effect this produces and what it targets without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like gegl_apply_filter or the other apply_* filters, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the effect name.

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