Adjust channel intensity

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

Annotations only convey read-only/mutation flags. The description adds concrete behavior: positive deltas capped at +5 per call and by the effective ceiling, while negative deltas are unrestricted. This is useful context beyond annotations and does not contradict them.

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 communicates the core operation and the key constraints without wasted words. Every clause contributes necessary information.

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 small mutating tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the critical operational constraints. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens when a positive delta exceeds +5 and by explicitly contrasting with set_intensity, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and calling the tool.

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 already documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the delta parameter by clarifying the effective positive limit and the unrestricted negative side, which goes beyond the schema's generic -200..200 range.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a signed intensity delta to one channel.' This is more informative than the title and differentiates the tool from sibling dglab_set_intenensity, which would be for absolute setting rather than relative adjustment.

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 word 'delta' implies this is for incremental relative changes, so an agent can infer when it applies, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over set_intensity or stop_channel, nor does it name any exclusions.

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