Measure and correct image levels, white balance, vibrance, and contrast, then apply editable adjustment filters to a layer or project.
Measure and correct levels, white balance, vibrance, contrast. Adds normal, editable filters (an adjustment layer on top, or effects on layer=).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| strength | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 that filters are 'editable' and can be applied as an adjustment layer or effects, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about whether changes are reversible, whether existing adjustments are overwritten, permissions, or the return format. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, that leaves significant gaps.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operations performed. The parenthetical about adjustment layers is a bit dense but not wasteful.
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 zero-annotation, zero-schema-coverage mutation tool with no output schema, the definition omits parameter meaning, reversibility, and interaction with siblings. What is present is true but too thin to call the tool correctly.
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% for all three parameters. The description never explains 'layer', 'project', or the numeric 'strength' (scale, direction, 0-1 vs 0-100?). With fully undocumented parameters, the description must compensate and does not.
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 the operations (levels, white balance, vibrance, contrast) with a verb 'measure and correct', so the resource is clear. But it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like apply_look, match_color, or analyze_image, and the name 'auto_enhance' alone doesn't map cleanly to the listed corrections.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer this over apply_look or match_color. The phrase about 'normal, editable filters' hints at role but offers no selection criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.