Create a non-destructive adjustment layer to apply one filter or a chain of filters that alter all layers below without changing source pixels.
Adjustment layer on top: its filters change everything below it, non-destructively. One filter (type + params) or a chain effects=[{type, params}, ...]. See list_effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| effects | No | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-destructive, layer-scoped nature of the operation, but omits whether it targets an active project, what it returns, or any ordering/interaction constraints with the layers above it.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. Dense but readable, though the second sentence is slightly terse.
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 five-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential filter semantics but leaves project/name params and the return behavior undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it clarifies the relationship between 'type'+'params' and the 'effects' chain structure. It leaves 'name' and 'project' entirely unexplained, so it only covers half the surface.
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 concrete resource (an adjustment layer) and its defining behavior: filters that affect everything below it. The add_ prefix supplies the verb. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_effect by scope, though it doesn't name them directly.
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?
It explains the two usage modes (single 'type + params' or a chained 'effects' array) and points to list_effects for discovery, which is helpful. However, it never says when to choose this over add_effect or a fill/effect tool, leaving the sibling-routing decision implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.