photoshop_set_layer_opacity

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 discloses the 0-100 range, which is useful, but says nothing about permission needs, what happens if the named layer is missing or duplicated, or whether the change is undoable. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the constraint parenthetical immediately following. Nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and the tool is simple with only two required params. Still, failure modes and the active-document precondition are absent, leaving the agent to guess at edge cases.

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. It does add meaning for both params: opacity is a percentage bounded 0-100, and name is a by-name layer identifier rather than an index or ID. However, it omits case sensitivity, duplicate-name behavior, and whether decimals are accepted.

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 (set), resource (layer opacity), and the identifying key (by name), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like photoshop_set_layer_visibility and photoshop_select_layer_by_name. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., a layer must exist or be selected), and no routing guidance relative to the many layer-related siblings. The agent must infer all of this.

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