ps_adjustmentLayer

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly but non-destructive mutation, matching the 'adjustment layer' concept. The description adds that clip:true binds the layer to the one below, useful context, but says nothing about defaults when settings are omitted or what happens if the type's settings are invalid.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and then enumerating variants; efficient, though the type list is long and slightly crowds out the settings-object mapping.

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 mutation tool with a nested settings object, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers type-specific keys but omits default behavior and return/error semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 20%, but the description compensates by mapping parameter names to each adjustment type (brightness/contrast, hue/saturation/lightness, etc.) and explaining clip. However it doesn't clarify that these keys go inside the 'settings' object, leaving a structural gap.

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 ('add an adjustment layer') and enumerates the supported adjustment types, so the agent knows exactly what it creates. It doesn't distinguish itself from near-siblings like ps_layerStyle or ps_applyFilter, which also alter layer appearance.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives; the agent must infer that this is for non-destructive adjustment layers versus filters (ps_applyFilter) or layer styles (ps_layerStyle). The clip note is the only operational hint.

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