Create or update a curves adjustment layer by setting control points for RGB or individual channels to adjust tone and color.
Create or update a curves adjustment layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| points | Yes | Control points [[input, output]] on 0–255 range. Min 2. | |
| channel | No | ||
| layerId | No | ||
| opacity | No | ||
| layerName | No | ||
| interpolation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does 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 says the tool creates or updates a layer but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, effects on existing layers, or return behavior, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the broader completeness gap.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 17% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain parameter usage, behavioral effects, or alternatives, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke it correctly.
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 only 17%, with just the points parameter documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented channel, layerId, opacity, layerName, or interpolation parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create or update a curves adjustment layer." It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby adjustment tools such as design_adjust_levels or design_adjust_hsl.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The operation is implied by "Create or update," but no selection context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.