photoshop_adjust_brightness_contrast

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 identifies the target as the active layer but does not disclose whether the change is destructive or non-destructive, whether values replace or increment existing adjustments, what happens with no active layer, or what the result is. For a mutating tool this 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The user-language list earns its place by helping agents map colloquial requests to this tool.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context unstated: mutability, active-layer prerequisites/error behavior, and how to choose among the many adjustment siblings. It is a clear but minimal definition that does not fully equip an agent to invoke it correctly in all relevant scenarios.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented with names, ranges, required flags, and a detailed document_id note. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating brightness/contrast concepts, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Adjust') and resource ('brightness and contrast of the active layer'), making the core action clear. The user-language aliases help intent matching, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like photoshop_adjust_exposure or photoshop_auto_contrast.

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 'Users often say: fix exposure, add contrast, brighten, darken' line provides useful trigger phrases for when to use the tool. However, it gives no exclusions or alternatives, and 'fix exposure' is ambiguous given that a dedicated photoshop_adjust_exposure sibling exists.

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