photoshop_apply_gaussian_blur

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Apply' implies a mutation, but the description never states whether the operation is destructive or non-destructive, whether it requires the layer to be rasterized/smart object, what happens with no active layer, or whether it can be undone. Only the barest behavioral signal is present.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps 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-value explanation is not required, but with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage for the required parameter, the description leaves the agent without behavioral or parameter information necessary to call the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'radius', and the description does not compensate at all — it never explains units (pixels?), acceptable range, or how radius affects the blur. With undocumented parameters, the description should have carried this, but it does not.

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 (Gaussian Blur filter) and names the target of the operation (the active layer). An agent can distinguish it from selection, layer-management, and other filter siblings by name, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as photoshop_apply_camera_raw_filter.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other filter or adjustment tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a layer must be active, a selection may need to exist). The single sentence implies usage but states no conditions or exclusions.

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