photoshop_adjust_hue_saturation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does identify the operation as adjusting the active layer, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the change is destructive, reversible, requires a selected layer, or can silently retarget documents. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation, though it omits useful guidance that would make it more valuable.

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 plus a fully documented schema is adequate for basic invocation, but the lack of annotations, output schema, and usage alternatives leaves gaps. An agent can call the tool correctly, but may struggle to choose it over similar adjustment tools or anticipate side effects.

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 input schema already documents the meaning and ranges for hue, saturation, lightness, and document_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the same concepts, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Adjust hue, saturation, and lightness of the active layer.' This clearly states what the tool does and names the target layer. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling color-adjustment tools like adjust_vibrance or adjust_brightness_contrast, so it falls short of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as adjust_vibrance, adjust_brightness_contrast, or desaturate. It does not state prerequisites like requiring an active layer or explain scenarios where this tool is or is not appropriate.

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