photoshop_apply_gaussian_blur

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and target; it does not reveal whether the blur is destructive to pixels, whether it respects selections, or whether it can be undone. The document_id parameter description adds some retargeting context, but the main description lacks important side-effect transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action and target efficiently, and is appropriately sized for a simple filter operation.

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 low-complexity tool with full parameter descriptions and no output schema, the definition is mostly sufficient to invoke correctly. The main gaps are the lack of usage differentiation and behavioral side-effect disclosure, which prevent it from being fully complete.

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%, with both radius and document_id already documented in the schema. The main description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise verb and object: 'Apply Gaussian Blur filter to the active layer'. It clearly identifies the operation and the target, and the filter type distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_motion_blur and apply_smart_blur.

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 implies the tool is used when a Gaussian blur is needed on the active layer, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative filters or when not to use it. There is no exclusion or prerequisite guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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