match_color

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive or reversible, whether colors are permanently baked into the layer, how the amount parameter modulates the effect, or what permissions/project context are needed for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with an illustrative parenthetical and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given the undocumented parameters and missing behavioral context.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It omits parameter meanings, reversibility, and any indication of what the operation returns or how to scope it to a project.

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 the description must compensate, but it only implicitly covers layer and reference. The amount parameter (default 1) and project parameter are entirely undocumented, leaving the strength/scope of the matching effect undefined.

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 verb and resource (match a layer's colors and tones to another layer) with a concrete example of the scenario. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like apply_look or auto_enhance that could also alter color.

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 parenthetical example ('a pasted subject vs the background') implies the typical compositing use case, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as apply_look or auto_enhance.

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