apply_lens_correction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool writes a LensProfile section into the profile, revealing its side effect. However, it lacks details on safety, permissions, or error conditions, making it moderately transparent.

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 concise with one sentence per key aspect and a clear parameter list. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more efficient by removing the redundant param list header.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, modifies profile) and lack of output description, the description covers the main function and modes. However, it omits details about return values, error handling, and full parameter semantics, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description lists all parameters and explains mode values ('auto'|'lcp'), but does not clarify the effect of boolean parameters like correct_distortion or defaults beyond what schema shows. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it applies lens correction to a PP3 profile and specifies two modes (auto and lcp). It differentiates from siblings like check_lens_support by focusing on application rather than checking, though not explicitly.

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 explains when to use each mode: auto for automatic detection from RAW EXIF, lcp for specifying an .lcp file. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for typical use.

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