Add Adjustment Layer

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the adjustment layer is non-destructive and placed above the active layer, clarifying the behavioral effect. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose and non-destructive nature. Every word is meaningful with no fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (9 types, many nested params) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It lacks an output description, but for an MCP tool that typically returns a confirmation, this is acceptable.

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 detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the description's guidance to 'Supply the type and its specific params object' adds minimal extra value. It correctly directs the agent to the schema for full details.

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 specific verb 'creates' and resource 'adjustment layer', states it's non-destructive, and lists all nine supported types. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ps_apply_filter which likely applies destructive filters.

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 explains where the layer is placed ('above the active layer') and lists supported types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct pixel manipulation or filter tools. The non-destructive nature implies preference for reversible edits.

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