photoshop_adjust_curves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses side effects ('adds Curves adjustment layer'), preconditions ('active document'), and notes the operation is non-destructive. It could be more explicit about whether it modifies existing layers, but the description adequately covers key behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use when, Do NOT use when, Returns, Preconditions, Side effects). It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage conditions, return format, preconditions, and side effects. It even provides example user intents and an explicit alternative, making it fully contextual for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (preset and document_id) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action: 'Create a Curves adjustment layer on the active document.' It also lists common user intents (make it pop, S-curve, etc.) and explicitly names a sibling tool to avoid (photoshop_recipe_apply_color_grade), making its purpose distinct from other adjustment tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use when: global tonal correction via a non-destructive Curves adjustment layer.' and 'Do NOT use when: stylistic cinematic grade — use photoshop_recipe_apply_color_grade.' This clearly differentiates when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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