photoshop_set_layer_blend_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that COLOR maps to BlendMode.COLORBLEND and that DARKERCOLOR/LIGHTERCOLOR use Action Manager if the DOM enum is missing, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the operation is undoable) or any prerequisites. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional note about mapping is concise and relevant. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 simple setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, the mapping nuance, and the optional document_id parameter's purpose (though that is in the schema). It does not describe return values, but that is not expected for a mutation tool without an output schema. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a little by reiterating the COLOR mapping and the fallback for DARKERCOLOR/LIGHTERCOLOR, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema covers the parameters adequately.

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: 'Set the blend mode of the active layer.' It specifies the verb, resource, and target. The tool is distinct from siblings like photoshop_set_layer_opacity or photoshop_set_layer_visibility by focusing specifically on blend modes, making it unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the clear naming and the fact that no sibling tool performs the same operation provide implicit guidance. The context of 'active layer' is clear, and there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned. Since the purpose is self-evident and there is no confusion with other tools, a 4 is appropriate.

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