adjust_hsl_native

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 does not disclose whether the tool modifies the file in place, returns a new sprite, or any side effects. The behavioral impact (e.g., destructive or reversible) is unclear, which is a significant gap.

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 relatively concise with a one-line purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity. However, the parameter list could be slightly more compact, but overall it's efficient.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it modifies the sprite, or the nature of 'engine-quality'. More context on behavior and output is needed.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing value ranges for hue (-180..180), saturation (-100..100), lightness (-100..100), and notes that width/height >0 scopes the region. Since schema coverage is 0%, this added detail is valuable.

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 is a 'Native Hue/Saturation/Lightness filter' and distinguishes it from 'adjust_hsl' with the parenthetical 'engine-quality vs adjust_hsl'. The verb 'filter' and resource (Hue/Saturation/Lightness) are specific, and the sibling differentiation is explicit.

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 mentions the alternative tool 'adjust_hsl' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling. It merely states 'engine-quality' without further context, so usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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