gimp_layer_effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that action='set' updates params/visible/opacity/blend_mode and 'delete' removes the effect, and notes the operation is non-destructive. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid filter_id or defaults, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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 that captures the essential purpose and behavior. It contains no redundancy or filler, every clause adds information, and the action semantics are packed efficiently.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool has 6 parameters, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it specifies the actions, the source of filter IDs, and which fields are affected by 'set'. It does omit richer parameter details (e.g., shape of params object, opacity range), but this is largely discoverable from the sibling gimp_layer_effects output, so the description is reasonably 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. It adds meaning to the action parameter by defining 'set' and 'delete', and clarifies filter_id as the effect ID from gimp_layer_effects. However, it merely lists params, visible, opacity, and blend_mode by name without explaining formats, allowed values, or how params should be structured. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit or delete a non-destructive layer effect'. It names the specific resource (non-destructive layer effect), the verbs (edit/delete), and the two action behaviors. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gimp_layer_effects (which lists effects) by referencing IDs from that list, and from destructive filter tools by emphasizing non-destructive.

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 provides clear context by saying IDs come from gimp_layer_effects, which tells the agent to first list effects before using this tool. It also clarifies the two actions and what they do. It lacks explicit mentions of alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it doesn't quite earn a 5, but the context is clear and there are no exclusions.

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