photoshop_create_adjustment_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the adjustment is non-destructive. That is a genuine differentiator versus the sibling *_adjust_* tools. However, it says nothing about whether a document must be open, which layer the new layer is inserted above, or any permission/undo implications.

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 the core action first and the valid type options in parentheses. No filler, no redundancy, nothing that fails to earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is created plus the type options. But with no annotations and no parameter documentation, an agent still lacks document-state prerequisites and placement behavior for a tool that mutates the layer stack.

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 there are no enums, so the schema alone documents neither parameter. The description usefully enumerates the valid adj_type values (curves, hue_saturation, levels, brightness_contrast, vibrance), which is real added value. It says nothing about the 'name' parameter, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 (create) and resource (Adjustment Layer) and parenthetically enumerates the supported adjustment types, so the agent knows exactly what gets produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling adjustment commands (adjust_brightness_contrast, adjust_curves_auto, auto_levels, etc.), so the reader must infer the difference from the word 'non-destructive'.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. In a sibling set containing five sibling adjustment tools plus an entire layer-creation family, the description never says to prefer this layer-based approach over the direct pixel adjustments or how it relates to photoshop_create_layer. Usage is only implied by the word 'non-destructive'.

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