filter_adjust_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not disclose whether omitted sliders are left untouched or reset, whether the change is destructive/undoable, or whether the layer must be an image layer — all critical for a mutation tool with 9 parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation and scope immediately. The parenthetical enumeration of all eight sliders is somewhat redundant with the schema but is defensible as a quick capability summary.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain partial-update behavior and side effects. It leaves the agent guessing about what happens to unset sliders and whether the change is reversible.

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%, with each slider's range documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only re-lists the same slider names already present in the schema and adds no range, default, or interaction semantics.

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 ('adjusts') and resource ('color grading sliders on an image layer') and enumerates the eight affected properties, so the agent knows exactly what the tool touches. The word 'Manually' hints at a contrast with filter_apply_preset but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Manually adjusts' implies this is the hand-tuned alternative to the sibling filter_apply_preset, which is a usable usage signal. However, it never states when to choose this over applying a preset, nor any prerequisites such as the target layer needing to be an image layer.

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