auto_enhance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a destructive tonal change but doesn't say whether it modifies the active layer, creates a new one, is undoable, or how it interacts with the layer parameter; the mechanism of clipping is only hinted at.

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 core effect front-loaded; the parenthetical adds useful detail without waste. It is short, though its brevity is also the source of its gaps.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on three parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know how the parameters alter behavior or what the operation does to the document.

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 0%, so all three parameters (layer, per_channel, clip_percent) need explanation. The description only partially explains per_channel's effect (removing colour casts) and says nothing about what layer selects or what clip_percent controls or its valid range.

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 specific operation ('stretch the tonal range') and names the additional effect of the per-channel mode ('removes colour casts'). It is distinguishable from siblings like adjust_image or match_colors, though it doesn't explicitly say it contrasts with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use auto_enhance versus adjust_image, match_colors, or colorize_lineart. The phrase 'one-click photo fix' implies a quick automatic correction, but the agent gets no conditions for choosing this over manual adjustment tools.

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