photoshop_create_artboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well: states preconditions (active document), side effects (adds an artboard layer group), and a key conversion behavior (first artboard turns a regular canvas into an artboard document). It also specifies the return shape. It stops short of describing error behavior or reversibility, but covers the essential traits.

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 well-structured with line breaks, front-loaded summary, and clearly separated sections for examples, usage, returns, and side effects. It is slightly verbose with example phrases, but each section contributes useful operational 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important operational needs: what it creates, when to use it, what it returns, preconditions, and side effects. It could add explicit failure modes (e.g., no active document), but the given context is enough to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it restates origin defaults and document_id behavior that the schema already documents. No compensation needed, but also no extra semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a Photoshop artboard') and explicitly scopes the behavior (explicit origin or to the right of existing artboards). It names the sibling tool it is not (photoshop_create_document), so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' guidance, and names the exact alternative (photoshop_create_document) for the excluded case. Also gives user-phrase examples, helping map natural language to this tool.

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