adjust_hsl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only opaque pixels are affected and specifies the adjustment ranges, but it does not mention side effects, destructive nature, file saving requirements, or whether the change is irreversible. This leaves notable gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 concise, with a clear main sentence followed by a structured argument list. The example use cases add helpful context without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Shift hue, saturation, and lightness' is restated in args), but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 modifies a cel in an Aseprite file, but the description does not explain the return value, undo capability, or prerequisite state (e.g., whether the layer must exist). Given the complexity and absence of an output schema, more information would be needed for full context, though the parameter details are thorough.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail (e.g., 'Aseprite file to modify', 'Layer to adjust', 'Degrees to rotate hue, -360 to 360'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, enabling correct parameter usage.

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 action: 'Shift hue, saturation, and lightness of all opaque pixels in a cel.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from generalized color adjustment tools. The inclusion of the cel scope and opaque pixels makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 use cases (e.g., palette-swapped variants, shading for shadows or night scenes) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'adjust_hsl_native' or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied through examples rather than explicit directives.

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