apply_gaussian_blur

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait — the operation is destructive. It stops short of stating whether the change is undoable, whether it applies only to the active layer's pixels, or what the status dict contains on failure, leaving real risk information unstated.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the parameters follow as a compact bulleted list, so the reader gets the operation before the details. Nothing is padded, though the closing 'Returns status dict' line is thin and could carry slightly more substance.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, all parameters, and the return shape. It is still missing the routing guidance against same-family blur tools and any reversibility or failure-mode information an agent would want before mutating an image.

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 must compensate, and it does: all three parameters are named with meaning and defaults, including the units for radius (pixels) and the fallback for layer_name (active layer). It omits a valid range or practical bounds for radius and the expected format of layer_name.

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 Gaussian blur') plus a key modifier ('destructive filter operation'), so the agent knows exactly what happens to pixels. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'blur' or the generic 'gegl_apply_filter', which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 prefer this over the sibling 'blur', 'gegl_apply_filter', or 'gegl_filter_action', nor any prerequisite such as an image needing to be open or a layer selected. Usage is only implied by the parameter list.

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