ps_apply_unsharp_mask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and target layer but does not disclose whether the change is destructive, whether it modifies the layer permanently, or what happens if no active layer exists. This is a significant gap for a mutating image tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 one succinct sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by a concise parameter summary. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 the low complexity of this tool, the description plus full schema coverage is largely sufficient: it identifies the target layer, the operation, and the parameter meanings/ranges. Minor gaps remain around behavioral side effects and failure conditions, but for a simple parameterized filter the definition is reasonably complete.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by specifying the amount range (1-500), which is absent from the schema, and by restating the parameters in a compact form. However, radius and threshold semantics are not expanded beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('USM sharpening to the current active layer'), which distinguishes it from the sibling ps_apply_gaussian_blur by direction (sharpen vs blur). Although it doesn't name the sibling, the resource and effect are specific enough that an agent would not confuse it with other PS 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?

The description provides context that the tool operates on the current active layer but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state when sharpening is preferable to blur, nor mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the selection decision mostly to inference from the tool name.

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