photoshop_recipe_split_carousel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states preconditions (active document width at least slides pixels), side effects (writes one file per slide; source document unchanged), and the return shape (ok, summary, output_paths in slide order, details). This gives an agent a clear picture of impact and output.

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 organized into labeled sections and every sentence earns its place: action, use case, exclusions, returns, preconditions, and side effects. There is no filler or redundancy despite covering substantial ground.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it does, when to use it, when not to, preconditions, side effects, and return structure. No essential information is missing.

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%, with every parameter documented including defaults, ranges, and mutual requirements (slide_width requires slide_height). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence states a concrete action ('Split the active wide document into N equal vertical slices and export...') with a specific resource and output purpose. It clearly names the carousel use case and distinguishes itself from neighboring tools by naming the exact alternatives in the usage guidance.

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 has explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' sections, naming photoshop_recipe_export_social_variants and photoshop_crop_document for cases where this tool should not be used. It also provides a typical request example and preconditions, leaving no ambiguity about when to select it.

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