gegl_apply_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description still discloses important behavior beyond the schema: the filter is appended rather than replacing existing filters, and it is editable and non-destructive. However, it omits prerequisites, layer-targeting behavior, failure cases, and what the call returns.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to the core meaning: append, named, editable, non-destructive, GEGL filter, and layer target.

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?

The tool has six parameters, a nested properties object, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description carries a heavy documentation burden. It states the high-level effect but leaves out the operational and parameter details needed to invoke a GEGL filter confidently.

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% for six parameters, including the required operation and nested properties object. The description only obliquely hints at name and layer_name through "named" and "to a layer," and does not explain valid operation values, properties structure, opacity, or image_index.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Append a named, editable, non-destructive GEGL filter to a layer." It clearly identifies the action and target, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as gegl_filter_action or the specific apply_* filter tools.

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 implies it is used to add a filter to a layer, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like gegl_filter_action or apply_gaussian_blur.

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