photoshop_adjust_exposure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states preconditions ('active document') and side effects ('adds an Exposure adjustment layer'), and it discloses the return format as a JSON object. This covers the key behavioral traits, though it does not mention whether the adjustment layer is inserted above the current selection or other fine-grained details.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, then user phrasing, return format, preconditions, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a straightforward adjustment tool: it states the purpose, gives example user intents, specifies preconditions and side effects, and describes the return JSON. Given the optional parameters and clear schema, nothing essential is missing, though it does not clarify whether the layer is added above the active layer or document root.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds minimal extra meaning—only the terms 'stops, offset, gamma correction' which map directly to parameter names. Since the schema already handles the semantics, the description adds little beyond that baseline.

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 specific action ('Create an Exposure adjustment layer') with the resource (Exposure adjustment layer) and lists its parameters (stops, offset, gamma correction). It is clear and distinct from other adjustment tools by name, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like brightness/contrast or curves, so it lacks the sibling differentiation needed for 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?

It provides concrete usage context by listing typical user requests ('fix underexposed photo, brighten by a stop, gamma fix'), which tells an agent when to select this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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