photoshop_apply_layer_style

Does 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 implies a mutation but doesn't disclose whether existing layer styles are replaced or merged, whether the operation is undoable, permission/auth requirements, or what the return value is. With has_output_schema=true, return formatting is partially covered, but mutation semantics remain unstated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but perhaps too terse for a 7-parameter mutation tool, leaving no room for required context.

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 7 parameters, zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is materially incomplete. The existence of an output schema reduces some burden, but an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without more information about parameter interactions and mutation behavior.

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, but it only names two of seven parameters (stroke, drop_shadow) without explaining the relationship between them and the five dependent parameters (shadow_size, stroke_size, shadow_opacity, shadow_distance, stroke_color_hex). Defaults exist in schema but meaning and interaction are unexplained.

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 (Layer Styles / FX), and gives concrete examples (Drop Shadow, Stroke). The scope is narrowed to 'the active layer,' which distinguishes it from sibling layer tools. It loses the top score only because it doesn't explicitly differentiate from adjacent effect-adjacent siblings like adjust_* tools.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites are given. An agent must infer that the active layer must be set beforehand, and there is no guidance on how this relates to other layer tools. Only the 'active layer' phrase implies context.

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