photoshop_adjust_curves_auto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a destructive pixel edit, whether it can be undone, or whether it creates an adjustment layer instead. The only behavioral hint is the implicit target scoping.

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 short sentence with no filler and the operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for a pixel-modifying adjustment with no annotations a note on destructiveness or reversibility would make it complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema has full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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') plus a named operation ('Auto Curves') and the precise target ('the active layer'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like photoshop_auto_levels and photoshop_auto_contrast.

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 phrase 'active layer' implies the precondition that a layer must be selected, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over photoshop_auto_levels, photoshop_auto_contrast, or photoshop_adjust_brightness_contrast, nor any exclusion.

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