filter_apply_preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether this is a destructive mutation, whether the preset stacks with or replaces existing filter values, whether an undo is needed, or what the response contains. The enumeration of preset names adds context about the operation's scope but not about its side effects or reversibility.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. The parenthetical list of presets is useful but somewhat redundant with the schema enum, though it improves scanability.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is thin: it does not clarify side effects, reversibility, or interaction with filter_adjust_values. An agent could invoke it but lacks confidence about the resulting state of the layer.

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 50% (only layerId is documented as 'Image Layer ID'; presetName has an enum but no description). The description echoes the preset names via examples, which maps usefully to the enum but adds no syntax, formatting, or fallback guidance beyond what the schema already enumerates. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.

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 (apply) and resource (aesthetic color grading preset) applied to an image layer, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like filter_adjust_values (manual value adjustment) and image_crop/image_remove_bg (transformative ops). It loses a point only because it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, though the enum of preset names strongly signals the intended scope.

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 implies usage — apply a preset to a layer — but offers no explicit when-to-use vs filter_adjust_values (for granular control), no prerequisites, and no note on whether applying a preset overwrites prior adjustments. Usage is inferable from the verb+resource pairing but not guided.

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