adjust_brightness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Adjust image brightness.' It does not disclose whether the image is modified in place, whether changes are reversible, whether the original file is preserved, or whether the factor has clamping behavior.

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 with verve and no waste: 'Adjust image brightness.' It states the whole subject without redundant preview of parameters or generated plumbing.

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?

With only two well-documented parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose. However, because this is a mutating image tool with no annotations, the absence of any usage or behavioral context leaves it only minimally 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 100% because both parameters have informative descriptions and a default for factor. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already covers semantics like 0.5=darker and 1.5=brighter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Adjust') and resource ('image brightness'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings such as adjust_contrast. It is unambiguous, and even without opening the schema the agent knows exactly what operation this tool performs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like adjust_contrast, or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions, so the agent must rely on the tool name alone to decide relevance in a larger editing workflow.

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