curves

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the basic behavioral profile is covered. The description adds that it is a non-linear stage and says 'Checkpoints first', reinforcing the destructive nature and suggesting safe usage. It does not contradict annotations and adds moderate context.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose and parameter format. Each clause contributes: transformation type, parameter format, stage, and checkpoint instruction. Minor structural issues include fragmentary phrasing ('CurvesTransformation:') and the terse 'Checkpoints first' that could be clearer, but overall it is efficient and relevant.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and low schema documentation, the description handles the main options but still lacks important context. It does not state how the parameters interact (e.g., whether curves and contrast can be combined), what the 'id' refers to, or what happens to the target image beyond being destructive. The 'non-linear stage' and 'checkpoints first' give pipeline context, but significant gaps remain.

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 20%, so the description carries the main semantic burden for parameters. It explicitly provides the structure of the curves parameter with a concrete example, and specifies the valid ranges for contrast and brightness (-1..1). It also implies an 'or' relationship between explicit curves and convenience adjustments, which is not clear from the schema alone. It does not explain the 'id' parameter, but the description compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 clear operation: applying explicit curves per channel or convenience contrast/brightness, and identifies it as a non-linear stage. It provides a concrete example of the curves format, which distinguishes it from a vague image operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is a non-linear stage in a processing pipeline and instructs 'Checkpoints first', which is a clear operational guideline. It mentions the convenience contrast/brightness as an alternative to explicit curves, but does not specify when to choose this tool over sibling tools like stretch or saturation. Exclusions and alternatives to other tools are not explicitly stated.

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