photoshop_apply_sharpen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Apply' implying mutation but doesn't mention that the operation modifies the layer destructively, requires an active layer, or has any undo implications. No side effects or prerequisites are disclosed.

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 sentence with no extraneous content. The action and target are front-loaded, making it extremely concise and to the point.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters including an optional document_id, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context such as whether the operation works on the active layer (it does say that), what happens if no layer is selected, whether it affects smart objects differently, or any error conditions. The description is incomplete for a destructive filter operation.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the action: apply the Unsharp Mask filter to the active layer. It names the specific filter and target, distinguishing it from sibling filter tools like gaussian blur or noise. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it doesn't earn 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?

No guidance on when to use this filter versus other sharpening or filter tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about appropriate scenarios. The description is purely declarative with no usage advice.

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