photoshop_apply_lut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: an active document precondition, a side effect of adding a Color Lookup adjustment layer, and the non-destructive nature of the operation. It also states the return JSON shape. It does not cover failure modes or interaction with existing layers, but it covers the essentials well.

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 organized with clearly labeled sections (Users often say, Use when, Do NOT use when, Returns, Preconditions, Side effects), and it front-loads the core purpose. Although it is longer than the minimum, every section carries useful routing or behavioral information without padding.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers what the tool does, accepted input values, user intents, when to use and when not to use it, return format, preconditions, and side effects. An agent has everything necessary to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds example built-in LUT names and file extensions, but these largely mirror the schema's lut description. It does not add significant meaning for document_id beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Apply'), a specific resource ('Color Lookup (3D LUT) adjustment layer'), and a clear purpose ('cinematic color grading'). It also enumerates example LUT names and supported file formats, making it easy to distinguish from other color/filter tools at a glance.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use when' (stylistic non-destructive color grade in one step) and 'Do NOT use when' (basic tonal fixes) with named alternatives (photoshop_adjust_curves or photoshop_auto_levels). It also lists natural-language user expressions, which helps an agent recognize when a user request maps to this tool.

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