design_apply_sharpen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does little. It implies a new adjustment/filter layer is created (suggesting non-destructive, editable), but never states whether existing pixels are altered, whether the layer is added on top of the stack, or what permissions/state are 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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding or waste. Brevity here borders on under-specification, but as a structural matter there is nothing to trim.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description: the agent knows what filter is applied and its two knobs, but not which document/layer is targeted, where the new layer lands in the stack, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with zero structured behavioral coverage, more context is needed.

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 both parameters include ranges and defaults (amount 0–2 default 0.5, radius 1–5 px default 1), so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable at baseline 3 but no better.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Add an unsharp mask sharpening filter layer' tells the agent exactly what effect is created and that a layer is added. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the many sibling filters (design_apply_blur, design_apply_grain, design_apply_halftone), though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus other filter tools, no prerequisites, and no statement about whether it operates on a selection, the active layer, or the whole composite. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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