Adjust colors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions neutral values and the saturation 0 = black & white behavior. It does not state whether the original file is overwritten, what happens if output_path is omitted, or any side effects, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide essential neutral-value context. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details.

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?

The schema fully documents all parameters, and the description explains the core purpose and neutral defaults. However, the description does not address the optional output_path behavior—specifically what happens if it is omitted—which is a notable gap for a tool that likely writes files. The overall picture is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Although the schema already provides full parameter descriptions with ranges and defaults, the description adds a unifying concept of 'neutral values' and explicitly clarifies that saturation 0 equals black & white. This goes beyond the schema by helping the agent reason about combinations and intended default behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Tune') and clearly identifies the resource being modified (brightness, contrast, saturation), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like adjust_volume or resize_video. It directly conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is for color adjustments through the phrase 'Tune brightness, contrast, and/or saturation,' but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context is clear enough for basic selection, but there is no explicit guidance.

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