Create a gradient map layer to remap luminance to a color gradient defined by two or more stops, with optional intensity, opacity, and layer name controls.
Create a gradient map layer that remaps luminance to a color gradient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stops | Yes | Color stops: [{pos: 0–1, color: "#hex"}]. Min 2 stops. | |
| opacity | No | ||
| intensity | No | Effect intensity 0–1. Default 1.0. | |
| layerName | 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 discloses the luminance-to-color mapping behavior, but says nothing about whether a new layer is added on top of the stack, whether it replaces an existing gradient map, whether the operation is reversible, or whether a target layer/selection is required.
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 tight sentence with the key concept front-loaded, no filler or restatement of the tool name. It is efficiently written, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description would need to do much more work. It omits where the layer is created, what it applies to, and what the caller receives back, which is inadequate for a document-mutating tool with a nested-array required parameter.
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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter detail at all. 'stops' and 'intensity' are documented in the schema, but 'opacity' and 'layerName' are documented in neither place, leaving the caller to guess their defaults and effect on the result.
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 ('Create') and resource ('gradient map layer') plus the mechanism ('remaps luminance to a color gradient'), which is enough for an agent to know exactly what gets produced. It does not distinguish itself from nearby effect siblings such as design_apply_duotone or design_add_gradient, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for this instead of design_apply_duotone, design_add_gradient, or a blend mode. The agent must infer usage solely from the phrase 'gradient map' with no stated preconditions (e.g. an active document or selected layer).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.