Adjust brightness, contrast, and saturation with deterministic values to correct or stylize sprite colors, then save the graded result to a new file.
Apply deterministic brightness, contrast, and saturation grading to a sprite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | ||
| contrast | No | ||
| brightness | No | ||
| saturation | No | ||
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| output_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description alone must disclose side effects and behavior. It adds the useful trait 'deterministic,' but does not state whether the source sprite is modified, whether a new output file is created, which formats are supported, or whether the operation is reversible/destructive.
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 single sentence is economical and front-loads the core action and deterministic nature, with no filler. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of omitting necessary parameter and usage context.
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 a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves out input/output file behavior, supported formats, value semantics, and the relationship to sibling adjustment tools, making correct invocation uncertain.
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 0%, and the description only repeats the names brightness, contrast, and saturation without explaining their meaning or relationships. It does not clarify input_filename/output_filename semantics, the format enum, or how values like contrast=1 and saturation=1 should be interpreted.
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 ('Apply') and identifies the resource ('a sprite') plus the exact operations involved ('brightness, contrast, and saturation grading'). It is clear enough to distinguish the general purpose from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping adjustment tools.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like adjust_brightness_contrast, adjust_hsl, or apply_convolution. The description implies a combined color-grading use case, but there are no explicit alternatives, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.