sharpen

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a mutation of a layer and that it returns a status dict, but says nothing about whether it is destructive/in-place, undo behavior, required preconditions (an open image, an existing layer), or error conditions.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the parameter list is compact and scannable, with no filler sentences. The trailing 'Returns status dict' is terse but earns its place as the only return-value note.

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 zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but is thin on behavior: no side-effect, precondition, or failure information. It is adequate to invoke the tool but not to invoke it safely.

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 largely does: all five parameters get meaning, units, ranges, and defaults (amount 0-500 default 50.0, radius in pixels default 3.0, threshold as minimum difference, layer_name defaulting to the active layer). Only minor gaps remain, such as the meaning/units of image_index beyond 'target 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sharpen a layer') plus the underlying technique ('using unsharp mask'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like blur, denoise, or gegl_apply_filter, but 'sharpen' is unambiguous among the listed 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and the parameter defaults; there is no statement of when to prefer this over blur/denoise or over a GEGL filter route. It does helpfully note that layer_name defaults to the active layer, which gives some operational context but no exclusions.

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