Apply automatic contrast correction to the active Photoshop layer, balancing highlights and shadows to enhance image clarity.
Apply auto contrast adjustment to the active layer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | Optional Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. When set, the tool activates that document before running so a UI tab switch cannot retarget the edit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the operation but does not disclose whether pixel changes are destructive, whether the edit is recorded in history/undoable, how selections are treated, or what the call returns. This is an actionable but sparse disclosure for a mutating tool.
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?
One short sentence front-loads the operation and target with no filler. Every word earns its place, and no restructuring is needed.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the core operation is complete enough to invoke, but the missing usage differentiation and behavioral caveats on a mutating operation prevent a higher score. It is a minimum-viable description rather than a fully contextual one.
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%, and the document_id parameter is already described with its source and purpose. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('apply') and a specific adjustment ('auto contrast') scoped to 'the active layer', leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like photoshop_auto_levels by naming the exact adjustment, even though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.
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 on when to choose this over photoshop_auto_levels, photoshop_adjust_brightness_contrast, or other adjustment tools, and no prerequisites or selection requirements are mentioned. The only context is the target 'active layer', which comes from the operation itself rather than explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.