adjust_contrast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Adjust image contrast' adds no information beyond the tool name: it does not say whether the operation mutates the image, returns a new image, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. This is a tautological description with no behavioral transparency.

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 only one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It front-loads nothing of substance and fails to earn its place by conveying any information beyond the tool name.

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?

While the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description still omits essential context such as whether the adjustment is relative to the current image, whether the original is overwritten, and when this tool should be chosen over adjust_brightness. For a tool with no annotations, this is not enough context for reliable invocation.

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%, and the input schema already documents both parameters: factor has a clear explanation with example values, and image_id is described as the image ID. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Adjust image contrast'), so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like adjust_brightness or other image-modification tools, so it misses the sibling-differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adjust_brightness, rotate_image, or crop_image. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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