design_adjust_color_balance

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 signals a mutation ('Create ... layer') but says nothing about whether the adjustment is non-destructive, where the layer is inserted, whether a document must be open, or that all-zero defaults produce a no-op layer. For a 12-param mutation tool this is a substantive 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the action and resource, which is exactly what an agent scanning candidates needs first.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but not misleading. The real gap is layerName and opacity, which have no schema descriptions at all and are not mentioned in the text, plus no statement of the return value or resulting layer identity.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents the R/G/B tint ranges and preserveLuminosity. The description's mention of shadow/midtone/highlight simply names the parameter families the schema already labels, adding no range, format, or interaction detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Create a color balance adjustment layer with shadow/midtone/highlight tinting.' This usefully disambiguates the 'adjust' in the name into a layer-creation operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like design_adjust_hsl, design_adjust_levels, or design_adjust_curves, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose — an agent can infer it belongs to the tonal/color-adjustment family. There is no explicit statement of when to pick color balance over HSL/levels/curves, no prerequisites, and no note about what the layer attaches to (active document, current selection, layer stack position).

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