photoshop_adjust_hue_saturation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'adjust'. It does not disclose whether the change is destructive to pixels or creates an adjustment layer, whether it is undoable, what valid ranges are, or how the active layer is determined. This is a mutation tool with essentially no behavioral disclosure.

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 with the verb and target front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutating adjustment tool with zero annotations indeed the description should cover destructiveness, scope, and parameter ranges. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly.

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% and no annotations exist, so both structured fields and prose are silent. The description names the three parameters (matching the schema keys) but gives no ranges or units, which is critical for hue (-180..180 vs 0..360) and saturation/lightness (percentage vs -100..100). It adds almost nothing beyond the schema.

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) plus the three resources (Hue, Saturation, Lightness) and scopes them to the active layer, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like photoshop_desaturate or photoshop_adjust_brightness_contrast. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 related tools such as photoshop_desaturate (a special case of saturation adjustment) or photoshop_create_adjustment_layer (a non-destructive variant). The agent must infer selection entirely from tool names.

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