raster_enhance

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'auto-enhance image' without explaining side effects such as overwriting the original file, return values, or permission requirements. The 'factor' parameter is mentioned in the schema but not described, and the 'output' parameter's behavior is completely unclear. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation-like 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 very short but under-specified for a tool with four parameters. While it has no fluff, it omits critical information about parameters and behavior, making it less concise and more incomplete. The 'mode:' listing is helpful but the overall message is too sparse to be considered well-structured.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain how the output is handled, what the factor does, or how the enhancement is applied. The sibling tools cover a similar space, so more context is needed to differentiate and guide correct invocation.

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. It does explain the valid values for 'mode' (contrast, color, sharpness, all), which is useful since the schema only defines it as a string with a default. However, it provides no meaning for 'path', 'factor', or 'output', leaving the agent to guess their roles and formats.

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 starts with 'Auto-enhance image', which is a clear verb+resource statement that differentiates from tools like raster_resize or raster_crop. It also specifies the main mode options (contrast, color, sharpness, all), adding purpose detail. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from raster_adjust or raster_filter, which could overlap in functionality.

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 versus its siblings like raster_adjust or raster_filter. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where an alternative would be preferred. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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