Apply edit steps or a preset to an image file and export the result in one shot without creating or saving a project.
One-shot: apply steps (or a preset id) to an image file and export, without keeping a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | ||
| steps | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| output | Yes | ||
| preset | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| quality | No | ||
| overwrite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds real context beyond that: it writes an output file and discards no project state afterward. However it says nothing about overwrite collisions, what dry_run does, or format/quality handling, which matter for a file-writing tool.
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?
A single compact sentence with the distinguishing constraint front-loaded after the 'One-shot' label. No wasted words, though the economy comes partly at the cost of the missing parameter detail.
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 8 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and file-writing side effects, the definition is under-specified for correct invocation. An agent still cannot determine dry_run/overwrite/quality semantics or whether steps and preset are mutually exclusive.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies input, output, steps, and preset; format, quality, dry_run, and overwrite are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving half the parameters opaque (e.g. is quality a 0-100 scale? does format default from the output extension?).
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?
States a concrete verb chain (apply steps/preset to an image file and export) plus the key scope qualifier 'without keeping a project', which separates it from the open_project/edit_project flow. It does not name a specific sibling as the alternative, so differentiation is implicit rather than 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?
'One-shot ... without keeping a project' hints at when to prefer this over the project-based path (open_image/open_project + edit_project + save_project), but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. For a batch of 27 siblings, implied routing is thinner than ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.