ps_apply_gaussian_blur

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It says only that the filter is applied to the active layer; it does not disclose that the operation mutates pixel data irreversibly, whether undo is possible, or what happens if no active layer exists. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating graphic operation.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the parameter detail is separated into a tight second sentence.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is minimally adequate: the action, target layer, and parameter default are present. However, the absence of output/error expectations and any behavioral warnings leaves an agent without several contextual details it might need in a Photoshop automation flow.

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 100% and the description repeats the same radius semantics and default value rather than adding new meaning. The schema already documents radius as blur radius in pixels with default 5, so the description provides no additional parameter insight beyond the baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'apply Gaussian blur filter to current active layer.' It also defines the radius parameter and default. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from ps_apply_unsharp_mask, but the filter name and target make the purpose 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?

No guidance is given on when to use Gaussian blur versus the sibling filter ps_apply_unsharp_mask, nor are prerequisites such as a guaranteed active layer mentioned. The only implicit context is that it operates on the current active layer, so the agent gets no help choosing or preparing for this tool.

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