photoshop_adjust_vibrance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses side effects ('adds a Vibrance adjustment layer') and preconditions ('active document'), and specifies the return JSON structure. This gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's non-destructive, layer-adding behavior.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then user-intent mapping, then return/preconditions/side effects. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 simple tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: return shape, preconditions, and side effects are all stated. A small gap is the lack of explanation about what happens when no active document exists, but this is minor given the precondition is explicitly called out.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters with ranges, defaults, and document_id behavior. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score of 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Vibrance adjustment layer.' It defines the tool's function ('Vibrance boosts muted colors while protecting skin tones') and includes user phrasing ('make colors pop (safely), boost saturation without clown look') that clarifies intent. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling adjustment tools like photoshop_adjust_hue_saturation or photoshop_desaturate.

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 usage context via user language ('Users often say: make colors pop...') and states a precondition ('active document'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or conditions when NOT to use this tool, which would raise the score to 5.

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