apply_look

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavior burden. It discloses the two application modes (layer vs adjustment layer), which is meaningful, but says nothing about permissions, whether the look is destructive, or what the default does to existing layers beyond 'on top'.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the two modes clearly indicated. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain parameter roles and whether the operation is destructive. Currently it leaves the agent to infer how 'layer' and 'project' behave.

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% with 3 params and no descriptions. The description does not explain what 'name', 'layer', or 'project' refer to, that 'name' is required, or that 'layer' selects one-layer mode and its absence triggers the adjustment-layer default. This is a real gap for an apply operation.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Apply a look' with two placement behaviors (adjustment layer on top, or effects on a single layer). This distinguishes it from sibling 'list_looks' and the add_*/set_* edit tools, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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 implies when to use each mode (default top-level vs per-layer), giving some implicit guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no reference to alternatives like applying effects manually.

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