adjust_brightness_contrast

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool modifies the file but does not mention side effects, undo capabilities, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 extremely concise with a clear structure: a short introductory line followed by a parameter list. Every sentence is essential and well-organized.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It explains parameters but lacks information on return values, error handling, or example usage. It is adequate but not fully 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter (e.g., brightness range, optional region, layer name empty means active). It provides more context than the schema alone, though it could detail the effect scale.

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 that the tool applies a native brightness/contrast filter to an Aseprite file, which distinguishes it from other adjustment tools like adjust_hsl. However, it does not explicitly explain what makes it 'native' or how it differs from similar tools, so clarity is good but not perfect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like adjust_hsl. It lacks contextual information such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. This makes it harder for an agent to select the appropriate tool.

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