Enhance + correct perspective

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and read-write behavior. The description adds that it 'enhances' and 'corrects perspective' but does not elaborate on what 'enhance' entails (e.g., color adjustment, sharpness). The return of a corrected image URL is stated, but no details on side effects or persistence. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 sentences efficiently convey the tool's action and output. No superfluous words, front-loaded with the primary function. Every sentence 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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks depth. It does not explain what 'enhance' means operationally or provide examples of typical use cases. The return value is mentioned briefly (URL), but more detail (e.g., format, size) would improve completeness.

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 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The 'imageUrl' parameter is already well-described in the schema; 'preserveOriginalFraming' is also explained. The description simply restates the tool's purpose without enriching parameter understanding.

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 uses specific verbs ('enhance', 'correct perspective') and identifies the resource ('photo'). It clearly states the output (corrected image URL) and distinguishes from sibling tools like pedra_enhance (which only enhances) and pedra_edit_via_prompt (which is more generic).

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 the tool is for photos needing perspective correction and enhancement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other editing tools (e.g., pedra_enhance for pure enhancement) or when not to use it. No alternative guidance is provided.

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