design_auto_levels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the tool mutates the current composite in place and that the levels are derived from a histogram. It does not say whether the change is destructive/undoable, whether it applies per-layer or globally, or what happens on an empty composite.

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 action front-loaded and no filler. It could be marginally clearer if the targeting/optionality were split out, but nothing is wasted.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and an undocumented layerName parameter, the description should clarify targeting, reversibility, and scope. It answers 'what algorithm' but leaves the questions an agent must resolve before calling it — which layer, and can it be undone.

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 33% (only 'clip' is documented), and the description adds nothing about any parameter. Critically, 'layerName' is unexplained in both places — the description says it works on 'the current composite', which leaves the reader unsure whether layerName re-targets the operation or is ignored.

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 names a specific operation ('computing and applying histogram-based levels') on a specific target ('tonal range of the current composite'), which is far more precise than the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with the very similar sibling design_adjust_levels (manual levels), leaving that differentiation implicit.

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 adverb 'Automatically' hints that this is the hands-off counterpart to design_adjust_levels / design_adjust_curves, but the description never states when to choose it over those siblings or any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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