adjust_brightness_contrast

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions parameter ranges and optional region, but omits whether the operation is destructive, modifies in-place, or has side effects like affecting other layers.

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 very concise, uses a clear list format for arguments, and front-loads the purpose. No extraneous information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the overall effect, return value, or how it integrates with the sprite. Missing context like whether the filter applies instantaneously or returns a result.

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 adds essential meaning: it explains each parameter's role (e.g., 'brightness: -100..100') and condition for region. However, the descriptions are minimal and could be more detailed.

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 explicitly states 'Native Brightness/Contrast filter' and lists the specific parameters (brightness, contrast) and scope (layer, frame, optional region). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like adjust_hsl.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adjust_hsl_native, apply_convolution). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are mentioned.

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