photoshop_generate_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('{ ok, summary, details }') and critical preconditions (generative_fill capability, Adobe generative credits). It does not detail side effects like document modification, but the core generative behavior is transparent.

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?

Four terse, purposeful lines: action, use triggers, returns, and preconditions. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The return shape and preconditions are clearly given, compensating for the missing output schema. The use-when triggers cover selection, and the optional document_id parameter is described in the schema so the agent knows about activation behavior. Minor gap: no explicit mention of whether the tool creates a new document or modifies an existing one, but the width/height 'if creating new doc' hints imply both cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond calling prompt a 'text prompt' and does not clarify width/height/document_id semantics, which are left entirely to the schema. No additional value is provided.

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 states a specific action: 'create an image from a text prompt' with the explicit feature name 'ImageGen (Firefly ImageGen)'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like photoshop_generative_fillretical and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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' triggers: user asks for ImageGen, text-to-image, or a new picture from a description. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but these conditions are sufficient for an agent to select this tool among the many Photoshop siblings.

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