Capa de ajuste

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature and the clip=true behavior of limiting the effect to the layer below, which is genuine behavioral context, but it omits auth/permission needs, error behavior, and reversibility for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact reference block. The long type/params list is dense but each entry earns its place given the opaque params schema.

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 18-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most complex parameter well but leaves many behaviors (return values, defaults, failure modes, permissions) undocumented.

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 only 44%, but the description compensates strongly for the critical opaque 'params' object by detailing the expected key structure for every adjustment type (e.g. curves{points,channel}, selectiveColor{colors}). This goes well beyond the schema, which only declares params as a free-form object.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Crea una capa de ajuste no destructiva', and enumerates the adjustment types it supports. An agent can tell this creates an adjustment layer rather than a plain layer. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource 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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like ps_create_layer or ps_set_layer, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the type enumeration, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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