blur

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only notes "Returns status dict." It does not say whether the blur is applied destructively to layer pixels, whether it is undoable, whether it respects selections, or what permissions/state the image must be in.

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 parameter list; every line earns its place. The quoted multi-line formatting is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter coverage is good but behavioral coverage is thin — nothing about side effects, layer targeting when multiple images are open, or return dict contents beyond "status dict." Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not complete.

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, and it does: it documents all four parameters including units (pixels), defaults (5.0, 5.0, 0), and the non-obvious semantics that `layer_name` defaults to the active layer. Minor gap: no guidance on valid ranges or whether non-integer radii are accepted.

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?

"Apply Gaussian blur to a layer" gives a specific verb and resource, so the core action is unambiguous. However, the sibling list contains `apply_gaussian_blur` (and `gegl_apply_filter`), and the description makes no attempt to say how this tool differs from those, leaving a real selection ambiguity.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the near-duplicate sibling `apply_gaussian_blur`. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the preferred blur path versus the GEGL filter tools.

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