photoshop_create_text_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well: it declares the precondition (active document), the side effect (adds a text layer), and the return envelope { ok, summary, details }. It does not mention undo/reversibility or whether the new layer becomes the active selection, which are the remaining behavioral facts an agent might want.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then tightly labeled sections (Users often say / Use when / Do NOT use when / Returns / Preconditions / Side effects). No filler sentences; the multilingual keyword line is unusual but directly serves retrieval.

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 16-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, preconditions, side effects and sibling routing. Minor gaps remain: x/y coordinate reference frame is unspecified and there is no note on when point vs. paragraph text is appropriate beyond the schema's default inference rule.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by mapping colloquial user phrasings onto parameters (letter spacing→tracking, line height→leading, text box→box_width/height) and by directing font discovery to photoshop_list_fonts. It does not clarify the coordinate space of x/y or the interaction between auto_leading and leading.

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?

Specific verb+resource (create a text layer) with the exact settable facets enumerated: content, position, font, optional typography. It explicitly distinguishes itself from photoshop_update_text_content and photoshop_set_text_style, so an agent can route new-text vs. edit-text without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit 'Use when' (labels, titles, typography) and 'Do NOT use when' (editing existing text) with named alternative tools, plus a negative routing rule telling the agent not to fall back to execute_script for tracking/leading/box. That is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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