photoshop_apply_noise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the action and target. It does not disclose that the filter directly mutates the active layer's pixels, that repeated applications compound noise, or how smart objects are handled.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb, filter name, and target layer. There is no fluff or redundant wording.

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 schema fully explains all parameters and the description states the active-layer target, making invocation possible. However, with no annotations or output schema, the lack of operational context like destructiveness and expected side effects leaves the definition only minimally 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?

All four parameters in the schema have descriptions, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: applying the Add Noise filter to the active layer. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling filter tools such as gaussian blur, sharpen, motion blur, and high pass.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool over other filter tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention alternatives or typical use cases, so the agent gets no selection help beyond recognizing the filter name.

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