Adjust the brightness and contrast of the active Photoshop layer to fix dark or washed-out images. Set each value from -100 to 100 for precise tonal control.
Adjust brightness and contrast of the active layer (-100 to 100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contrast | No | ||
| brightness | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 discloses the -100 to 100 range and implies an active layer must exist, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether the operation is destructive, or whether an active document/layer is required. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a notable gap.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the operation and folds the value range in without waste. Every element earns its place.
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?
With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output-schema explanation needed, the description is too thin for a mutation tool. It omits sibling differentiation, prerequisites, and any behavioral context, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to fill by guesswork.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It names both fields and supplies the (-100 to 100) range that applies to each, which adds real meaning beyond the bare titles and defaults. It still omits any explanation of the default-0 behavior or the effect of negative vs positive values.
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 (Adjust) and resource (brightness and contrast of the active layer), so the agent knows exactly what operation runs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from tone-manipulation siblings such as photoshop_auto_contrast, photoshop_adjust_curves_auto, or photoshop_auto_levels.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several siblings (auto_contrast, adjust_curves_auto, auto_levels) that overlap in intent. The agent is left to infer when this manual adjustment is preferable to the automatic ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.